Internet broadcast host (BJ) Gwajuk Se-yeon (real name In Se-yeon) strongly refuted the controversy surrounding the 1.6 billion won fraud.
On the 6th, Gwajuk Seyeon posted on her social networking service (SNS) account, “Recently, a rumor was spread online that the passionate chairman donated 1.6 billion won to Gwajuk Seyeon over two years, but was blocked, and through media reports, etc. “It is being enlarged and reproduced,” he wrote in a long article.
He continued, “However, the author of the Soop (formerly Afreeca TV) post mentioned in the rumor has never spent 1.6 billion won or an equivalent amount on Jujuk Seyeon, is not the passionate chairman of Jujuk Seyeon, and has never been blocked by Jujuk Seyeon. “I confirmed it,” he said.
Jujuk Se-yeon said, “In addition, the author of the Soop post posted an apology for writing the post due to his clear misunderstanding 3 hours after the original post was written, and through the apology, he clearly stated that all of the suspicions he mentioned were false. “Provocative rumors are being spread by thoroughly distorting the same facts.” He added that he will take legal action against the spread and reproduction of false information, slander, insults, and malicious comments.
Previously, a netizen centered on an online community created a controversy by posting a post claiming that Gwajuk Seyeon had sponsored 1.6 billion won and rose to the level of ‘passionate president’, but was cut off. Juice Seyeon stated that these claims were false and announced a strong response to the spread of rumors.
Meanwhile, Gwajuk Se-yeon is working as a BJ on the internet broadcast Soop (formerly Afreeca TV). He recently appeared on the Netflix entertainment show ‘The Influencer’ and attracted attention in August this year when he was spotted together with his sister and Hive Chairman Bang Si-hyuk in Beverly Hills, USA. In relation to this, Hive at the time said, “(Chairman Bang Si-hyuk) ran into the older of the two at a gathering with acquaintances, and gave her advice on how to respond to entertainment impersonators.” They added, “Afterwards, the two of them went to LA together. “When I came to Los Angeles, I asked about tourist attractions and restaurants, made reservations, and gave guidance,” he said, adding that it was not a special relationship.
(Seoul = News 1)
rnrn
-
- great
- 0dog
-
- I’m sad
- 0dog
- I recommend it
- dog
Hot news now
Interview between Time.news Editor and Expert
Setting: A virtual meeting room. The Time.news editor is speaking with Dr. Lee, a media expert specializing in digital communications and online reputation management.
Editor: Good afternoon, Dr. Lee. Thank you for joining us today. The recent controversy surrounding internet broadcast host Gwajuk Se-yeon has certainly sparked a lot of debate. Can you give us your insights on how such rumors can escalate so quickly in the digital age?
Dr. Lee: Good afternoon! Absolutely, the rapid spread of misinformation online is a significant concern. The case of Gwajuk Se-yeon illustrates this perfectly. A single post can set off a chain reaction where rumors are amplified, often without proper verification. In this instance, the claim of a 1.6 billion won fraud was initially presented without credible evidence, yet it gained traction due to sensationalism and speculation.
Editor: That’s a crucial point. Gwajuk Se-yeon has stated that the source of the rumors quickly issued an apology, recognizing the misunderstanding. How effective do you think such apologies are in mitigating damage caused by misinformation?
Dr. Lee: Apologies can be effective, but their impact largely depends on timing and visibility. If the correction comes too late, or if it doesn’t reach the same audience that the original rumor did, it may not suffice to quell the damage. In Se-yeon’s case, while the apologist acknowledged their error, the narrative had already spread widely. It becomes a challenge to regain trust and credibility after such incidents.
Editor: Following this incident, Se-yeon mentioned potential legal action against those spreading false information. Do you think that’s a necessary step, or does it risk furthering the narrative of victimization?
Dr. Lee: Legal action can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it acts as a deterrent against malicious rumors and sends a strong message about accountability. On the other hand, it can also draw more attention to the accusations and create a narrative of victimization that some audiences might resonate with. Se-yeon’s approach needs to balance legal recourse with transparent communication to rebuild her reputation.
Editor: Interesting perspective. The digital landscape, particularly social media, plays a huge role in shaping narratives today. What strategies should public figures like Se-yeon employ to manage their online reputation amidst such challenges?
Dr. Lee: Visibility and proactiveness are key. Public figures should engage regularly with their audience, provide transparency about their activities, and address issues head-on rather than letting them fester. Authenticity matters; they need to show that they are not just responding to rumors but are also committed to positive engagement. Educational campaigns about misinformation can help their audiences become more discerning.
Editor: That’s valuable advice for anyone in the public eye. It’s paramount for them to take charge of their narrative, especially in a landscape where misinformation can spread like wildfire. As we wrap up, what overarching message would you want our audience to take away from this incident?
Dr. Lee: I would emphasize the importance of critical thinking and verification in our digital interactions. Audiences have a responsibility to seek out the truth before spreading information. Misinformation not only harms individuals like Gwajuk Se-yeon but can also distort public perception and trust in media. Let’s encourage a culture of fact-checking and respectful discourse online.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Lee. This has been an enlightening discussion about the implications of misinformation in the digital age. We appreciate your insights and look forward to seeing how this situation evolves.
The interview concludes with both parties thanking each other, highlighting the importance of communication in managing public perception in the age of digital information.