mmmmm

Akun suka-suka aku

[mmmmm @matchachiil]

Aku masih ada, tidak menghilang. Hanya cintaku yang berubah bentuk saja☺️

[mmmmm @matchachiil]

Yaa Allah orang dapat kantor sehijau neon gini tuh amalannya apa?😭

[Naq @404naqinotfound]

- baru masuk lgsg dapet annual leave
- ada cuti khusus umroh yg bs diambil
- overtime dibayar fair, even di weekend di kali 2
- bpjs + private insurance
- mbg tiap hari + snacks!
- work from home & hybrid policy
- kantor selangkah ke MRT 🫰🏻
- office w friendly sm working mom or working dad
- difasilitasin entertainment sport occasionally; padel, badmin etc
- bonus view kalo pulang sore ada ala ala night city view

[Soowonk216 💜🍀 @kim_soowon16]

Actor KimSoohyun Who suffered from Fake news 🤧

Deletion Alone Won’t Stop It — How Far Should Platform Responsibility Go?

The key to eradicating fake news is cutting off its profits. If the financial gains from spreading false information outweigh the penalties, there will be little deterrent effect. A starting point is preventing the redistribution of content that courts have determined to be false and cutting off any revenue generated from it. As long as a system remains in place where a single false exposé video can earn hundreds of thousands of won through advertising revenue and donations, similar content will continue to be produced.

Platforms in particular cannot avoid responsibility. YouTube, X, Instagram, and TikTok recommend content and share advertising revenue. The longer users stay engaged, the more profit platforms make. Even if they did not create the misinformation themselves, they are deeply involved in the process by which it spreads and generates income.

Reports of false content should be handled more quickly, and accounts that repeatedly upload misinformation should face sanctions. Content confirmed to be false should be excluded from recommendation systems, and safeguards should be implemented to prevent advertisers from placing ads on misinformation related content. Platforms should also disclose the standards they use when restricting content.

Many countries have already introduced measures to strengthen platform accountability. The European Union’s Digital Services Act requires very large online platforms with more than 45 million monthly users to take steps to reduce the risk of illegal content spreading. It also mandates transparency in content moderation standards & accountability regarding advertising and recommendation systems. The principle is that platforms with significant social influence must also bear significant responsibility.

The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act requires platforms to assess the risks of illegal content themselves, implement user-protection measures & keep records of those assessments. In other words, online safety is treated as a legal obligation rather than a matter of corporate choice.

Meanwhile, Germany’s Network Enforcement Act requires platforms to remove or block clearly illegal content within 24 hours of receiving a report. It is often cited as a leading example of efforts to combat misinformation & hate speech.

However, international examples also demonstrate the difficulties of regulation. Australia pursued anti-misinformation legislation in 2024, but ultimately withdrew it amid concerns that it could infringe on freedom of expression. When standards are unclear, accusations of censorship emerge & governments may appear to be deciding what is true & false. There was strong opposition from those who argued that raising public-interest concerns & expressing criticism must remain protected.

Where should the line be drawn between legitimate criticism & misinformation? This is a question that no country has answered easily.

Korea’s debate cannot avoid this same balancing act. Fake news targeting celebrities causes real harm. However, not all criticism should be labeled as misinformation. The crucial issue is establishing standards that can distinguish malicious and repeated dissemination of false information from legitimate criticism.

There must be a clear line between:

Presenting unverified allegations as established facts,

Repeatedly spreading claims even after the subject has refuted them,
Profiting from such activities,
& genuine criticism or commentary.

The goal of combating fake news is not to suppress criticism. It is to dismantle the system that turns falsehoods into profitable products. As long as misinformation remains profitable, the harm will continue to repeat itself.

What is needed now is not merely deletion of content, but a system that simultaneously prevents both its spread and its monetization. #KimSooHyun
https://t.co/nm1aLkfv68

[mmmmm @matchachiil]

@sweetiramisu15 Ampe saling unfollow jujur takut bgt kak

[mmmmm @matchachiil]

14 tahun coyyyy
Ini move onnya gimanaaa😭

[🍒alice⁺⁺ @midobirb]

wdym they broke up now 😭😭

[mmmmm @matchachiil]

Ckckckck udah ditolongin, tapi malah yg nolong dibiking hancur

[Graffitea @graffychi]

The benefits Kim Sae-ron received from Kim Soo-hyun in the past.

Kim Se-ui claimed that the reason for Kim Sae-ron's death was financial hardship caused by demanding excessive penalty fees, but this is completely different from the truth.

First of all, when Kim Sae-ron signed a contract with Goldmedalist, the place she lived in was Seoul The Sharp, an apartment with a current market value of about 2.6 billion KRW. At the time of the contract,

Kim Sae-ron received an interest-free loan of 650 million KRW from Kim Soo-hyun's side until the expiration of the contract.

Furthermore, in 2022, when Kim Sae-ron ruined her career due to drunk driving, Kim Soo-hyun's side paid on her behalf the drama and advertising penalty fees, which amounted to roughly 680 million KRW.

Kim Soo-hyun's side and Kim Sae-ron then concluded an interest-free money lending contract (loan agreement), providing financial support totaling 1.33 billion KRW to Kim Sae-ron, interest-free from Kim Soo-hyun's side.

However, Kim Sae-ron left the company in November 2022 and began to deliberately avoid contact from her former agency.

In 2024, when they sent a certification of contents, she intentionally posted a photo with Kim Soo-hyun on Instagram, putting pressure on Kim Soo-hyun. Left with no other choice the agencY ended up writing off Kim Sae-ron's drama filming penalty fees as bad debt. In other words, the content maliciously reported by the Garo Sero Research Institute (Gaseyeon) side was actually a story of good deeds by Kim Soo-hyun and his agency.

https://t.co/Q4dXDpmT7e

[mmmmm @matchachiil]

Gue ga akan bisa jadi aktor juga alasannya sama kayak gini😭
Ga tega gue liat scene yg macem2

[kdramahotgists @kdramahotgists]

First of all, I just found out that Jin Seon Kyu and Park Bo Kyung have been married for 16 years, and now I'm even more emotional after hearing their story. 😭❤️
Why are actors married to actresses jealous of bed scenes 😭😭😂😂

Jin Seon Kyu revealed that they met while studying at the Korea National University of Arts and grew close while performing together in a theater company after graduation.
What really got me was him sharing that after they had their child, Park Bo Kyung put her acting career on hold for eight years to focus on raising their family while he became the main breadwinner through theater work. She essentially stepped away from her dream for their child.
Now that she’s back and receiving praise for projects like Little Women, Jin Seon Kyu said he feels incredibly proud and emotional seeing her finally get the recognition she deserves.
And then there was his hilariously honest confession: he deliberately avoided watching her scenes in Queen Woo because he heard there was a 19+ scene. 😂
According to him, “It just felt a little weird for me to watch.”

Sir, after 16 years of marriage, you’re still jealous? That’s actually kind of ador

[mmmmm @matchachiil]

Pas svt gue sampe mual muntah aslam naik tetap ga dapet😭

[.⃗. chiä ･ﾟˊˎ @gyulittlepuppy]

selama bukan seventeen mah bisa aja 😇

[SH_216 🍀 @hyunwoosclover]

Man weve been through worst last year all yalls hit tweets did nothing because soohyun is coming back 🤣 he has been vindicated and the frontman is in jail 🍀 altho more to come!! ANDDD the fans have become more solid!! ♥️♥️♥️

[Graffitea @graffychi]

[Choi Jeong-a’s Entertainment Talk] Deletion Alone Won’t Stop It — How Far Should Platform Responsibility Go?

The key to eradicating fake news is cutting off its profits. If the financial gains from spreading false information outweigh the penalties, there will be little deterrent effect. A starting point is preventing the redistribution of content that courts have determined to be false and cutting off any revenue generated from it. As long as a system remains in place where a single false exposé video can earn hundreds of thousands of won through advertising revenue and donations, similar content will continue to be produced.

Platforms in particular cannot avoid responsibility. YouTube, X, Instagram, and TikTok recommend content and share advertising revenue. The longer users stay engaged, the more profit platforms make. Even if they did not create the misinformation themselves, they are deeply involved in the process by which it spreads and generates income.

Reports of false content should be handled more quickly, and accounts that repeatedly upload misinformation should face sanctions. Content confirmed to be false should be excluded from recommendation systems, and safeguards should be implemented to prevent advertisers from placing ads on misinformation-related content. Platforms should also disclose the standards they use when restricting content.

Many countries have already introduced measures to strengthen platform accountability. The European Union’s Digital Services Act requires very large online platforms with more than 45 million monthly users to take steps to reduce the risk of illegal content spreading. It also mandates transparency in content moderation standards and accountability regarding advertising and recommendation systems. The principle is that platforms with significant social influence must also bear significant responsibility.

The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act requires platforms to assess the risks of illegal content themselves, implement user-protection measures, and keep records of those assessments. In other words, online safety is treated as a legal obligation rather than a matter of corporate choice.

Meanwhile, Germany’s Network Enforcement Act requires platforms to remove or block clearly illegal content within 24 hours of receiving a report. It is often cited as a leading example of efforts to combat misinformation and hate speech.

However, international examples also demonstrate the difficulties of regulation. Australia pursued anti-misinformation legislation in 2024, but ultimately withdrew it amid concerns that it could infringe on freedom of expression. When standards are unclear, accusations of censorship emerge, and governments may appear to be deciding what is true and false. There was strong opposition from those who argued that raising public-interest concerns and expressing criticism must remain protected.

Where should the line be drawn between legitimate criticism and misinformation? This is a question that no country has answered easily.

Korea’s debate cannot avoid this same balancing act. Fake news targeting celebrities causes real harm. However, not all criticism should be labeled as misinformation. The crucial issue is establishing standards that can distinguish malicious and repeated dissemination of false information from legitimate criticism.

There must be a clear line between:

Presenting unverified allegations as established facts,

Repeatedly spreading claims even after the subject has refuted them,
Profiting from such activities,

and genuine criticism or commentary.

The goal of combating fake news is not to suppress criticism. It is to dismantle the system that turns falsehoods into profitable products. As long as misinformation remains profitable, the harm will continue to repeat itself.

What is needed now is not merely deletion of content, but a system that simultaneously prevents both its spread and its monetization.

[mmmmm @matchachiil]

ARGH gue ga mau qrt akun ini, karna sering bahas yg jelek buat soohyun, tapi tadi refleks bgtttt saking kaget😩

[mmmmm @matchachiil]

SUMPAHH????

[Hallyu FORUMS @hallyuforums]

#JungKyungHo and #ChoiSooYoung have BROKEN UP after 14 years of public dating.

According to My Daily's coverage on the 9th, Jung Kyung-ho and Choi Soo-young grew distant from each other due to their increasingly busy schedules and naturally broke up.

A source close to the couple hinted, "Because Jung Kyung-ho is constantly working on projects and Choi Soo-young is active between Korea and Japan, they met infrequently and recently ended their relationship."
Jung Kyung-ho and Choi Soo-young were known as one of the entertainment industry's representative long-term couples. The two are alumni of the Department of Theater and Film at Chung-Ang University, met for the first time at church, and became a couple in September 2012. Although they maintained a beautiful relationship for 14 years, they plan to return to their respective paths and focus on their careers.

#HallyuForums #Hallyu #KDrama

[mmmmm @matchachiil]

14 tahun ini mah kpr udah lunasssss😭

[mmmmm @matchachiil]

Sampe unfollow gini jujur gue takut

[Hallyu FORUMS @hallyuforums]

#JungKyungHo & #ChoiSooYoung UNFOLLOW each other on social media, CONFIRM breakup after 14 years together. - Breaking

According to Choi Sooyoung's agency : "It is true that the two have broken up. They have decided to remain good colleagues."

#HallyuForums #Hallyu #KPOP

[mmmmm @matchachiil]

@scoteaaa_ Ini 14 tahun, kalo umur manusia udah kelas 3 SMP taabbb
Ntar lagi SMA😭😭😭
Sayang bgtttt😩

[gigi @ptriiichor]

this is why people hit a certain age and start joining running clubs, training for marathons, taking a cooking course etc btw. we all just wanna feel alive!!!

[🥑 @oheyoul]

fangirling sendirian is a SAFE PLACE🙂
lebih tenang dan “sehat”, bukan karna gamau interaksi or nambah temen, cuma gamau menambah beban pikiran yang seharusnya emang gausah dipikirin🤟🏻

[Mac Karyo @Makaryo0]

MbeGeh dihentikan
Ortu siswa ngamuk❌
Pemilik dapur ngamuk ✅

Dari sini jelas ya siapa penerima manfaat terbesar program belanja APBN ratusan triliun itu 😊

[Graffitea @graffychi]

[THE FACT]
[Kang Il-hong’s Entertainment Today] Kim Soo-hyun resumes advertising activities after a year of silence… damage lawsuits may also turn in his favor

June 9, 2026, Tuesday

Actor Kim Soo-hyun’s return to public activities is attracting considerable attention. After effectively suspending public appearances for more than a year, Kim Soo-hyun is finally making a move.

His agency, Gold Medalist⁠, officially announced that #KimSoohyun will participate in an advertising shoot on July 14 for Philippine fashion brand Bench⁠.

Because this is his first official schedule since the personal-life controversies that emerged last year, it has become a major topic not only in the entertainment industry but also among advertisers.

This commercial project carries significance beyond a simple modeling job. Industry insiders are interpreting it as a signal of his return.

Why an advertising comeback matters

Advertising is generally more sensitive than dramas or variety shows. Brands rely heavily on a model’s public image and credibility, making them extremely cautious when hiring celebrities involved in controversies.

Last year, some brands that had used Kim Soo-hyun as a model ended their contracts or suspended marketing activities after the controversy grew. Additionally, the Disney+ series Knock-Off had its release postponed indefinitely.

Under such circumstances, Bench’s decision to use Kim Soo-hyun again suggests that the company believes the expected benefits outweigh the risks.

In other words, this advertising shoot may symbolize that the market is beginning to accept Kim Soo-hyun once more.

A key reason the atmosphere has changed

One of the biggest recent developments has been the investigation involving Kim Se-ui, operator of the YouTube channel Garosero Research Institute.

Police referred Kim Se-ui to prosecutors while in detention on allegations including the dissemination of false information. The court also approved his arrest warrant, citing concerns such as possible destruction of evidence and risk of flight. A subsequent challenge to the detention was rejected.

Throughout the controversy, Kim Soo-hyun’s side consistently denied various allegations connected to the late actress Kim Sae-ron, but public opinion remained divided.

However, with investigators taking a strong position regarding the alleged spread of false information, some observers believe the overall momentum of the case has begun shifting in a different direction.

Of course, a final court ruling has not yet been made. Nevertheless, many analysts believe the current situation appears more favorable to Kim Soo-hyun than before.

Could this affect advertiser lawsuits?

The industry is paying close attention to ongoing civil lawsuits.

Several advertisers are currently seeking damages from Kim Soo-hyun and related parties, citing contract termination issues and alleged damage to brand image.

Among the cases expected to resume are:

A lawsuit worth approximately 3.9 billion won from a health supplement company.
A lawsuit worth approximately 2.8 billion won from a cosmetics brand.

If future court proceedings determine that significant portions of the allegations were based on false or manipulated information, the legal landscape could change substantially.

Advertisers may then need to re-establish the legitimacy of their contract terminations and prove the actual causes of any damages claimed.

As a result, recent investigative findings could potentially serve as favorable reference material for Kim Soo-hyun’s side in these civil proceedings. However, because civil and criminal cases are judged separately, the final outcomes remain uncertain.