A scene from the Netflix original series "Mask Girl," which depicts the world of internet broadcast jockeys. This image is not directly related to the article. [Captured from Netflix's official YouTube channel]
A scene from the Netflix original series "Mask Girl," which depicts the world of internet broadcast jockeys. This image is not directly related to the article. [Captured from Netflix's official YouTube channel]

A story about an elementary school student who sent roughly 2 million won ($1,500) to an internet broadcast jockey, or BJ, has sparked public debate. The child's parents said they discovered the payments only after the fact and were denied a refund, fueling growing concern over minors' access to live-streaming platforms and the ease with which large sums can be spent on them.

The story spread across multiple online communities, including DC Inside, under the title "My elementary school daughter sent 2 million won to an Excel broadcast BJ."

The author, identified only as A, wrote that her hands were shaking as she typed, saying she had only recently learned her daughter had sent the large sum to a BJ.

"When I asked my daughter about it, she said she kept sending money because the BJ would call out her nickname and react to her," A wrote. "I know my child did something wrong — I scolded her, of course. But 2 million won is not a small amount, and when I asked about a refund, all I got was 'it's against the rules' and 'report it to the police.'"

The type of broadcast at the center of the controversy — known as an "Excel broadcast" — features multiple BJs competing in real time, with viewer donations determining a live ranking. BJs typically respond to donors by calling out their nicknames and performing dances or other reactions, encouraging further donations.

A said she could not understand what rule prevented a refund even after having it explained to her, and that she was going through her daughter's payment history line by line to piece together how the money was spent.

"Sending the money only took a few taps, but getting it back means tracking down every possible avenue," she wrote, adding, "Did I raise my child wrong?"

As the story spread, online commenters called for restrictions on minors' access to such broadcasts and for safeguards against large repeat payments. "The problem is that minors can so easily access these provocative streams," one user wrote, while another asked whether the BJ had effectively exploited a child with poor judgment. Many said platforms should be required to block young users from accumulating large charges through repeated small transactions.

However, some commenters placed the blame squarely on the parents, arguing that allowing such a large payment to go through was their responsibility. "You need to let children face the consequences of their actions — who are you blaming?" one commenter wrote.


betterj@heraldcorp.com