Journal archive

The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 67 , No. 3

[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 67, No. 3, pp. 127-159
Abbreviation: KSJCS
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Jun 2023
Received 17 Feb 2023 Accepted 17 May 2023 Revised 31 May 2023

기술 유토피아의 도구적 상상과 국가 프로젝트로서 1인 미디어 : 알고리즘 리터러시 논의를 중심으로
**서울시립대학교 도시인문학연구소 연구교수 (

Instrumental Imagination of Technological Utopias and YouTuber as a State-Centric Project : Focusing on the Discussion of Algorithmic Literacy
Namhee Hong**
**University of Seoul, Urban Humanities Institute (
Funding Information ▼


이 연구는 국가 주도의 기술 유토피아 상상이 1인 미디어 중심의 디지털 생태계를 중심으로 어떻게 고안, 실천되고 있는지 살펴보았다. 오늘날 유튜브 창작자는 동시대 청년들이 선택할 수 있는 창의 노동의 일종으로, 자기관리에 능숙한 기업가적 주체와 자기의 브랜드화를 독려하고, 알고리즘에 기반한 자동화된 주체성을 구성하고 있다. 이 연구는 ‘디지털 뉴딜’의 일환으로 시행되는 정부 주도의 청년 창작자 양성 계획이 한국 사회의 압축적 근대화와 국가 주도의 정보통신 정책의 계보 속에서 어떻게 자리 잡고 있는지 살펴보고, 이것이 유튜브를 통한 청년 실업 및 지역 경제 활성화라는 기술 유토피아적 관점이자 접근과 창작 위주의 제한적인 미디어 리터러시 관점을 전제하고 있다고 보았다. 이에 따라 이 글은 동시대 알고리즘 환경에 대한 이해를 기반으로 한 알고리즘 리터러시 개념을 제안하였다. 알고리즘 리터러시는 1인 창작자가 처한 구조적 조건으로서 디지털 미디어 환경이 “웹의 플랫폼화”로 진전되어 왔으며, 이에 기반한 인간-비인간의 연합과 기술-인간-문화의 상호구성으로 이루어져 있음을 전제한다. 이에 따라 창작자는 알고리즘을 기반으로 한 연결의 망 속에 위치해 있음을 인지하고 파편적 정보가 아닌 종합적 현실과 연결성을 고려한 실천을 해야 한다. 또한 창작자가 상업적 인플루언서로서의 역할을 인지하고 플랫폼 종속적인 불안정 노동 조건을 인식하게 한다. 알고리즘 리터러시 논의는 1인 미디어 창작자의 창작 환경으로서 알고리즘에 대한 이해를 보다 정교화하면서 플랫폼 자본주의의 작동 방식을 가시화한다는 의미를 갖는다.


This paper explores the historical context of Korean compressive modernisation and state-led ICT policies, and how the government-led young creator training programme, launched as part of the "Digital New Deal," fits within that context. Additionally, based on the government's media literacy-related policy discourses and practices, this article examines how the state-led vision of technological utopias is created and applied to the YouTube-centered digital environment. Youth might engage in gig work or platformized labor in their daily lives as a result of the platformization and algorithmization of the digital environment, which has taken over life, culture, and the economy. One sort of work that young people might select is creating YouTube video, and this creates a neoliberal subjectivity of entrepreneurial subjects capable of managing themselves in the context of the algorithmic environment. By analyzing the plan to nurture young creators as a state-centric project, we can see the YouTube-centered digital ecosystem as a solution to various social problems in South Korea, such as youth unemployment, the urban-rural gap and the financial crisis. Besides, the government's YouTuber training plan presupposes a growing subject who faithfully follows the algorithm of YouTube, gains global fame and actively builds their brand. Investing in the technology sector and training technical specialists are typical components of state-led technology development. However, the government-led initiative for one-person media makes YouTube the default platform and promotes young people as the ideal subjects for the digital age. The line between work and play is blending under digital capitalism, and as this is tied to the process of flexible labor in society, the state-led one-person media project assumes a technological utopian imagination and offers young people a new subjectivity. This research conducts a critical analysis of these regulations and investigates the discussion of algorithmic literacy as a substitute to broaden the present discourses and policies surrounding media literacy. Algorithmic literacy, as a structural condition faced by a single creator, premises that the digital media ecosystem has progressed to platformization and is composed of human-nonhuman association and technology-human-culture mutual composition. Accordingly, creators should recognize that they are located in a network of connections based on algorithms and should practice considering comprehensive reality and connectivity rather than fragmented information. Algorithm literacy can also be used to take on responsibility as a marketer who resists algorithmic governmentality and automation. It should also address the relational and ethical issues that arise because of the way technology functions. Discussing algorithmic literacy entails illustrating how platform capitalism operates and expanding on the notion of algorithms as a vibrant ecosystem by taking into account a number of agents, including media, policy, technology, marketer, advertiser, and the audience that surrounds one-person media creators.

KeywordsInfluencer, YouTuber, Digital New Deal, Algorithmic Literacy
키워드: 인플루언서, 유튜버, 디지털 뉴딜, 알고리즘 리터러시


This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF-2022S1A5C2A02093521)(이 논문은 2022년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2022S1A5C2A02093521)).

1. Abidin, C. (2016). Visibility labour: Engaging with Influencers’ fashion brands and #OOTD advertorial campaigns on Instagram. Media International Australia, 161(1), 86-100.
2. Abidin, C. (2020). Mapping internet celebrity on TikTok: Exploring attention economies and visibility labours. Cultural Science Journal, 12(1), 77-103.
3. An, J. I., & Park, E. H. (2022). Critical exploration of digital citizenship: Succession of citizenship and expansion of being digital. Media Convergence Research, 33, 39-75.
4. ASA (2019, October 1). Influencing responsibly: An influencer training event. Retrieved from
5. Benanav, A. (2022). Automation and the future of work (J. E. Yoon, Trans.). London: Verso Books. (Original work published 2020).
6. Bishop, S. (2019). Managing visibility on YouTube through algorithmic gossip. New Media & Society, 21(11-12), 2589-2606.
7. Bishop, S. (2020). Algorithmic experts: Selling algorithmic lore on YouTube. Social Media + Society, 6(1), 2056305119897323.
8. Bucher, T. (2017). The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 30-44.
9. Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2018). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
10. Caplan, R., & Gillespie, T. (2020). Tiered governance and demonetization: The shifting terms of labor and compensation in the platform economy. Social Media + Society, 6(2), 2056305120936636.
11. Chae, S. J. (2016). Technology, labour, and pricarious lives: A theoretical reflection on the relation between immaterial labour and precarity. Korean Journal of Communication Information, 79, 226-259.
12. Chae, S. J. (2021). Assembling food delivery app mobile labor workforce in South Korea. Korean Journal of Communication Information, 108, 58-91.
13. Cheney-Lippold, J. (2017). We are data. New York: New York University Press.
14. Choi, E. K. (2015). A study of accorded economic developmentalism on “Creative Economy” and “Cultural Prosperity”. Review of Culture and Economy 18(3), 181-207.
15. Cohen, J. N. (2018). Exploring echo-system: How algorithms shape immersive media environments. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 10(2), 139-151.
16. Dogruel, L. (2021). What is algorithm literacy?: A conceptualization and challenges regarding its empirical measurement. In M. Taddicken & C. Schumann (Eds.), Algorithms and communication (pp. 67-93). Berlin: DGPuK.
17. Gillespie, T. (2016). #trendingistrending: When algorithms become culture. In R. Seyfert & J. Roberge (Eds.), Algorithmic cultures (pp. 64-87). London: Routledge.
18. Gillespie, T. (2017). Algorithmically recognizable: Santorum’s Google problem, and Google’s Santorum problem. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 63-80.
19. Gillespie, T. (2020). Content moderation, AI, and the question of scale. Big Data & Society, 7(2), 2053951720943234.
20. Gorwa, R., Binns, R., & Katzenbach, C. (2020). Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data & Society, 7(1), 2053951719897945.
21. Gray, M. L., & Suri, S. (2019). Ghost work: How to stop Silicon Valley from building a new global underclass. New York: Eamon Dolan Books.
22. Helmond, A. (2015). The platformization of the web: Making web data platform ready. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 2056305115603080.
23. Hendrikse, R., Adriaans, I., Klinge, T. J., & Fernandez, R. (2022). The big techification of everything. Science as Culture, 31(1), 59-71.
24. Hong, N. H. (2021). Media literacy and childhood from the vulnerable in media use to prosumers of deviance. Korean Journal of Communication Information, 107, 149-180.
25. Huh, K., & Jeong, H. S. (2020). Developing algorithm for evaluation of information and procedure of critical thinking in media literacy education. The Journal of Education, 40(4), 287-304.
26. Jang, G. Y. (2020). Labor organizing and characteristics of platform labor as labor flexibility. Industry Labor Studies, 26(2), 183-223.
27. Jang, J. W. (2022, September 21). A policy to nurture one-person media creators in the No.1 desired job for young people. YTN. Retrieved from
28. Jeong, H. S., Oh, Y. J., & Kim, A. (2022). Critical algorithm literacy education in the age of digital platforms: Teaching children to understand YouTube recommendation algorithms. In L. Pangrazio & J. Sefton-Green (Eds.), Learning to live with datafication: Educational case studies and initiatives from across the world (pp. 153-168). London: Routledge.
29. Jin, H. M. (2022, March 30). Don't buy this!” Losing influencers, becoming ‘de-influencers’. Women News. Retrieved from
30. Klein, N. (2020, May 13). Naomi Klein: How big tech plans to profit from the pandemic. The Guardian. Retrieved from
31. Kim, D. S. (2023, February 14). Kyonggido supports 70 teams of creators. Electronic News. Retrieved from
32. Kim, H. J. (2022). Social theory of the platform: Focusing on platform capitalism and algorithmic governmentality. Society & Theory, 41, 7-48.
33. Kim, K. H. (2018). A study on the fourth industrial revolution as a techno-utopianism. East-West Philosophy Studies, 90, 435-459.
34. Kim, M. H. (2020, July 18). Saimdang Shin said, “It’s a good time for people who don’t fit in the organization to make money.” The Hankyorae. Retrieved 22/02/22 from
35. Kim, S. Y. (2021). A study on the performability and interaction of transboundary digital entities: Focusing on ‘one-person media YouTube’. Humanistic Content, 62, 271-288.
36. Kim, Y. R. (2020). Platform producers and everydayness: Daily vloggers’ life and work. Korean Journal of Communication Information, 101, 153-199.
37. Kim, Y. S. (2020). Laborers’ images in the era of platform capitalism. Urban Studies, 18, 117-146.
38. Ko, S. M. (2022, October 21). Google Korea swears...“Tax avoidance, are Koreans stupid?” Yonhap News. Retrieved 22/02/22 from
39. Koenig, A. (2020). The algorithms know me and i know them: Using student journals to uncover algorithmic literacy awareness. Computers and Composition, 58, 102611.
40. Lee, D. H., & Lee, S. H. (2017). Exploring the BJs’ labor process : The Case of AfreecaTV. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 61(2), 127-156.
41. Lee, D. H., Hong, N. H., & Lee, S. H. (2021). Women's experiences in game streaming space : An in-depth interview. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 65(5), 46-88.
42. Lee, J. E. (2021, February 25). Ministry of Science and Technology strengthens support for the one-person media industry... 7.8 billion invested this year. Newsis. Retrieved from
43. Lee, J. H. (2020, January 13). Youtuber to return to the countryside, “I like Cheonnam”. KBC.
44. Lee, K. B. (2022, February 15). The Ministry of Science and ICT to open three ‘regional one-person media centers’ this year. News1. Retrieved from
45. Lee, K. S. (2014). A study upon the formation of techno-surplus society and its specificities. Korean Journal of Communication Information, 66, 184-210.
46. Lee, K. S. (2022). The topology of AI-automated platform labor in the phase of COVID19. Korean Journal of Communication Information, 109, 67-98.
47. Lewis, R., & Christin, A. (2022). Platform drama: “Cancel culture,” celebrity, and the struggle for accountability on YouTube. New Media & Society, 24(7), 1632-1656.
48. Lim, M. B., & Kim, S. J. (2018). The self-branding practices of the Internet BJ and the construction of intimacy between. Social Science Studies, 29(3), 105-130.
49. MacDonald, T. W. (2021). “How it actually works”: Algorithmic lore videos as market devices. New Media & Society, 25(6), 1412-1431.
50. National Information Society Agency (2022). White paper of national informatization. Retrieved from
51. Noh, K. S. (2020). A study on digital new deal strategy for inclusive innovative growth and job creation. Digital Convergence Studies, 18(1), 23-33.
52. Noh, J. C. (2004). Condensing modernization and structuralized risk on Daegu Subway Disaster. Economy & Society, 61, 208-279.
53. Oh, S. W. (2018). Algorithmification: Algorithm as core logic of media. Communication Information Studies, 55(2), 74-111.
54. Oh, S. W., & Yoon, H. O. (2022). ‘Algorithm’ approached with ‘media literacy’: Focusing on the case of ‘NewsAlgo’. Korean Journal of Broadcasting & Telecommunications Research, 2022, 7-37.
55. Paek, S. H. (2021). Ministry of Science and ICT, nurturing one-person media. Broadcast Technology Journal.
56. Park, D. M. (2020). Artificial intelligence and informational governmentality: Crisis on algorithmic governmentality studies. Communication Information Theory, 57(4), 55-94.
57. Park, S. K. (1993). Distortions of the social communication-world during the modernization process of Korean society. Korean Politics Studies, 12(1), 153-179.
58. Pedroni, M. (2016). Meso-celebrities, fashion and the media: How digital influencers struggle for visibility. Film, Fashion & Consumption, 5(1), 103-121.
59. Pyun, J. Y. (2022). Fragmentary thoughts on critical literacy in an AI algorithm-based text environment. Korean Language Education Research, 79, 1-41.
60. Risi, E., & Pronzato, R. (2022). Algorithmic prosumers. In E. Armano, M. Briziarelli, & E. Risi (Eds.), Digital platforms and algorithmic subjectivities (pp. 149-165). London: University of Westminster Press.
61. Roberts, S. T. (2016). Commercial content moderation: Digital laborers’ dirty work. Media Studies Publications, 12, 1-11.
62. Ruppert, E., Isin, E., & Bigo, D. (2017). Data politics. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 2053951717717749.
63. Schiller, D. (2015). Digital depression: Information technology and economic crisis. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
64. Seaver, N. (2017). Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 2053951717738104.
65. Seaver, N. (2019). Captivating algorithms: Recommender systems as traps. Journal of Material Culture, 24(4), 421-436.
66. Shin, D., Rasul, A., & Fotiadis, A. (2022). Why am I seeing this? Deconstructing algorithm literacy through the lens of users. Internet Research, 32(4), 1214-1234.
67. Shin, H. W. (2022). Prometheus' Utopia. Culture Science, 111, 41-65.
68. Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
69. Terranova, T. (2022). After the Internet: Digital networks between capital and the common, Vol. 33. MIT Press.
70. van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & De Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.
71. Wallis, R., & Buckingham, D. (2013). Arming the citizen-consumer. The invention of ‘media literacy’ within UK communication policy. European Journal of Communication, 28(5), 527-540.
72. York, J. C. (2022). Silicon values: The future of free speech under surveillance capitalism. London: Verso Books.
73. Zeng, J., & Kaye, D. B. V. (2022). From content moderation to visibility moderation: A case study of platform governance on TikTok. Policy & Internet, 14(1), 79-95.

1. 고상민 (2022, 10, 21). 여야, 구글코리아 뭇매...“조세 회피, 한국 국민이 봉이냐”. <연합뉴스>.
2. 김기홍 (2018). 기술 유토피아론으로서의 제4차 산업혁명론의 가능성. <동서철학연구>, 90권, 435-459.
3. 김동성 (2023, 2, 14). 경기도, 1인 크리에이터 70개팀 제작지원. <전자신문>.
4. 김미향 (2020, 7, 18). “조직 부적응자도 돈 벌기 좋은 시대” 신사임당은 말씀하셨어. <한겨레>.
5. 김소영 (2021). 탈경계적 디지털 개체의 수행성과 상호작용에 관한 논고: 1인 미디어 유형의 유튜브 채널을 중심으로. <인문콘텐츠>, 62권, 271-288.
6. 김영선 (2020). 플랫폼 자본주의 시대의 노동자상. <도시연구>, 18호, 117-146.
7. 김예란 (2020). 플랫폼 생산자와 일상성 : 일상 브이로거의 삶과 노동. <한국언론정보학보>, 101호, 153-199.
8. 김홍중 (2022). 플랫폼의 사회이론: 플랫폼 자본주의와 알고리즘 통치성을 중심으로. <사회와 이론>, 41집, 7-48.
9. 노규성 (2020). 포용적 혁신성장과 일자리 창출을 위한 디지털 뉴딜 전략에 관한 연구. <디지털융복합연구>, 18권 1호, 23-33.
10. 노진철 (2004). ‘압축적 근대화’와 구조화된 위험: 대구지하철재난을 중심으로. <경제와 사회>, 61호, 208-279.
11. 박대민 (2020). 인공지능과 정보통치성 : 인공지능과 자동화 사회에 대한 알고리듬 통치성의 비판적 확장으로서 정보통치성. <언론정보연구>, 57권 4호, 55-94.
12. 박승관 (1993). 한국 사회의 근대화 과정과 사회적 커뮤니케이션 세계의 붕괴. <한국정치연구>, 30호, 85-122.
13. 박정양 (2022, 10, 16). 정부, 올해 ‘디지털 뉴딜’에 역대 최대 9조원 투입...“초연결 신산업 육성”. <뉴스1>.
14. 박진선 (2020). 창작자는 어떻게 노동하는가?: 1인 미디어 생산 경험에 대한 비판적 고찰. <미디어 경제와 문화>, 18권 1호, 73-110.
15. 백선하 (2021, 4, 13). 과기정통부, 1인 미디어 육성한다. <방송기술저널>.
16. 신현우 (2022). 프로메테우스의 유토피아 : 자본주의 ‘소셜 픽션(Social Fiction)’을 지양하는 미래 기술정치의 재구성. <문화과학>, 111권, 41-65.
17. 안정임·박은희 (2022). 디지털 시민성에 대한 비판적 탐색: 시민성의 계승과 디지털의 확장. <미디어융합연구>, 33권, 39-75.
18. 오세욱 (2018). 알고리즘화(Algorithmification): 미디어의 핵심 논리로서 알고리즘. <언론정보연구>, 55권 2호, 74-111.
19. 오세욱·윤현옥 (2022). ‘미디어 리터러시’로 접근한 ‘알고리즘’: ‘뉴스알고(NewsAlgo)’ 사례를 중심으로. <방송통신연구>, 7-37.
20. 이광석 (2014). 국내 기술잉여사회의 형성과 특수성 연구. <한국언론정보학보>, 66호, 184-210.
21. 이광석 (2022). 코로나19 국면 인공지능 자동화와 플랫폼 노동의 위상학. <한국언론정보학보>, 109호, 67-98.
22. 이기범 (2022, 2, 15). 과기정통부, 올해 ‘지역 1인 미디어센터’ 3개 연다. <뉴스1>.
23. 이동후·이설희 (2017). 인터넷 개인방송 BJ의 노동 과정에 대한 탐색. <한국언론학보>, 61권 2호, 127-156.
24. 이동후·홍남희·이설희 (2021). 게임 스트리밍 공간의 여성 스트리머 경험 연구: 심층 인터뷰를 중심으로. <한국언론학보>, 65권 5호, 46-88.
25. 이재은 (2021, 2, 25). 과기부, 1인 미디어 산업 지원 강화한다...올해 78억 투입. <뉴시스>.
26. 이준호 (2020, 1, 13). 귀촌 BJ, 유튜버 인기 “전남이 좋아요”. <KBC>.
27. 임명빈·김수정 (2018). 인터넷 개인방송 BJ의 셀프 브랜딩 실천과 친밀성의 구성. <사회과학연구>, 29권 3호, 105-130.
28. 장귀연 (2020). 노동유연화로서 플랫폼노동의 노동조직 과정과 특성. <산업노동연구>, 26권 2호, 183-223.
29. 장정우 (2022, 9, 21). ‘청소년 희망직업 1순위’ 1인 미디어 창작자 육성 정책. YTN.
30. 진혜민 (2022, 3, 30). [브런치 경제] “이거 사지 마세요!” 인플루언서 지고 ‘디인플루언서’ 뜬다. <여성신문>.
31. 채석진 (2016). 테크놀로지, 노동, 그리고 삶의 취약성. <한국언론정보학보>, 79호, 226-259.
32. 채석진 (2021). 기다리는 시간 제거하기 : 음식 배달앱 이동 노동 실천에 관한 연구. <한국언론정보학보>, 108호, 58-91.
33. 최은경 (2015). ‘창조경제’와 ‘문화 융성’이 조응하는 경제발전주의에 관한 탐구. <문화경제연구>, 18권 3호, 181-207.
34. 편지윤 (2022). AI 알고리즘 기반 텍스트 환경에서 비판적 리터러시에 대한 단상. <국어교육연구>, 79권, 1-41.
35. 한국정보화진흥원 (2022). <국가지능정보화백서>. Retrieved from
36. 허경·정현선 (2020). 미디어 리터러시 교육에서 비판적 사고를 위한 정보의 가치 판단 기준과 판단 절차의 알고리즘화에 관한 연구. <교육논총>, 40권 4호, 287-304.
37. 홍남희 (2021). 미디어 리터러시 담론과 아동·청소년: 미디어 이용 취약층에서 일탈의 프로슈머까지. <한국언론정보학보>, 107권, 149-180.