[FN Plaza] A Society of Star Ratings, a Society of Penalties

Star ratings are a hot topic these days. They are the stars on smartphone screens. People tap the stars after dining at a restaurant, and they do the same after getting out of a taxi. They leave ratings after watching a movie, staying at a hotel, or ordering delivery food. The era when only some people rated and others were rated is already over. Now everyone rates, and everyone is rated.
The debate has intensified again after Naver reinstated its star-rating system for restaurants, cafes, and other businesses five years after suspending it. Naver had once removed star ratings because of malicious reviews and so-called "star attacks," but it began displaying them again last month. Consumers appear to welcome the move, but small business owners and self-employed workers see it differently. On the 14th of last month, the Korea Federation of Micro Enterprises (KFME) strongly criticized the decision, calling it "a painful move that forgets the history in which small business owners shed blood and tears."
Still, star ratings cannot simply be banned. In the digital age, they are one of the most efficient ways to deliver information. Even without reading long reviews, people can gauge overall satisfaction from a single average rating. According to a survey by the Korea Consumer Federation, 97.2% of consumers check reviews before making an online purchase, and 82.4% use the total number of reviews as a factor in deciding whether to buy. Star ratings clearly have a positive function, as consumers share their experiences and help others make choices.
There is an even broader meaning. In the past, only a few people, such as experts and critics, had the right to evaluate. A film's fate could change based on a critic's one-line review, and a restaurant's reputation could depend on the judgment of a handful of gourmets. But with the rise of platform-based services, that power has shifted to ordinary consumers. Anyone can now evaluate products and services and publicly share their experiences. Power has moved from the few to the many. In that sense, star ratings are even "democratic."
Star-rating culture is not necessarily negative. The U.S. film site Rotten Tomatoes is a prime example of how it has become a culture of its own. The site shows ratings from both critics and general audiences, and the two often differ sharply. But people enjoy the process of seeing opinions diverge over the same film. The coexistence of diverse tastes and evaluations has become one of the platform's strengths.
The problem begins when star ratings turn into penalties. Ratings were originally designed as a tool to provide information. But at some point, they began to be misused as a way to punish others. Some people give a one-star rating simply because they are unhappy with the service, and others use ratings as leverage to demand refunds or extra services. In some cases, groups even carry out organized "star attacks." As a result, search rankings can shift, sales can be disrupted, and small business owners' livelihoods can be put at risk.
The Netflix drama Black Mirror, especially the Season 3 episode "Nosedive," presents this kind of society in an extreme form. In the story, people rate one another, and those scores determine where they live, what jobs they get, and even their relationships. If a person's rating falls, they can lose friends, work, and social standing. It may seem like an exaggerated dystopia, but it is not all that far from our reality.
The recent controversy surrounding the film Hope can also be read in the same context. Film critic Dong-jin Lee gave the movie four out of five stars. But the debate shifted away from the work itself and toward the critic. Some questioned whether he had given it a generous score because he was close to the director, forcing him to explain that he was not even personally acquainted with the director. Once people begin to suspect a reviewer's motives simply because the opinion differs from their own, discussion disappears and only attacks remain. In a society that does not respect diversity of opinion, a healthy culture of evaluation is hard to sustain.
Small business owners are also worried about Naver's return to star ratings for the same reason. In the past, malicious reviews and star attacks have driven some self-employed workers to extreme choices. When a single rating can shake a livelihood, a star is no longer just a number. That is why KFME is calling for practical remedies against malicious ratings and stronger platform accountability.
In the end, the issue comes down to how star ratings are used and understood. Evaluation should be free, but it must also come with responsibility. Consumers have the right to speak honestly about their experiences, but not the right to attack others. Star ratings are most valuable when they are used not as a weapon of punishment, but as information that helps people make better choices.
[email protected] Jung Soon-min Reporter