The highly irresponsible, blatantly vulgar comments by an influencer have exposed the rot in a particular section of social media. Moreover, the comments raise pertinent points, both for the government and social media platforms. Endorsement of products and events has been part of the advertising arena ever since print media began allowing its columns to be used for advertisement.
In 2022, the government rightly issued guidelines for the prevention of misleading advertisements.
The advent of social media has heralded new forms of sponsorship through content creation, giving rise to a new breed of advertisers called social influencers.
These influencers are glorified content creators—professionals who earn through social media advertising. An influencer can be an innocuous content creator, a surrogate advertiser, an affiliate marketer, or even an advocate for a cause. The term is broad enough to include a podcaster, who hosts experts in everything from politics to astrology, and a woman showcasing her kitchen hacks to a loyal audience.
It is time that the government introduces a policy separating influencers into different categories. This is not only to enforce industry standards like those applicable to traditional media but also for the benefit of viewers. Often, viewers on social media don’t realise they are being sold harmful beauty standards in the guise of fitness or culinary advice.
Take, for instance, the ‘explainers’ on YouTube. There is a huge difference between a journalist or an academic talking about issues of national importance and a young content creator attempting the same. Usually, the latter is merely saying whatever suits their audience, laden with hyperbole and outrage for more engagement.
The digital ecosystem also involves chauvinists, separatists, and pseudoscience proponents, who spread harm with their ‘explainers’. They hold no qualification or credibility. In some cases, a content creator discusses a deeply emotive issue, only to segue into selling a product or service. This is done without disclosing the monetary benefits of converting views into business deals. Given the lax regulation of age-based content on social media platforms, this results in unregulated advertising to minors. Many times, popular personalities from politics, sports, and the silver screen are invited to boost the show’s popularity rating.
There is nothing wrong with a government representative, an industry expert, or an academic appearing on a podcast to talk about their work, personal struggles, or social issues for the consumption of consenting viewers. The intellectual backbone of India is made stronger by a free exchange of ideas. People have the right to speak and hear, within the confines of constitutional and socio-legal limitations. The problem arises when social media influencers with millions of viewers don a facade, creating ‘edgy’ content with no filter or censorship.
Broadcasting crass content in the guise of humour to an audience largely consisting of impressionable young people is—to say the least—immoral and nothing less than peddling soft porn.
One may argue that these content creators have the freedom of expression. However, any freedom enjoyed without the corresponding responsibility amounts to misuse. Public display of obscenity in any form is unacceptable. If such creators refuse to remain within social norms, legal and regulatory frameworks must step in to prevent social decay.
Also read: What should the government do to Ranveer Allahbadia? Nothing
Make regulations global
Social media influencing is nothing but surrogate advertising. Influencers project themselves as flawless paragons of virtue while promoting health supplements, beauty products, or sports equipment. Not only do they get paid for sponsoring a product but they also have comparative advantages over normal advertising or endorsement deals. One is that their income is not really treated as a professional fee.
This must be remedied. The pecuniary benefits derived by influencers should be treated as income from advertisement and taxed just like print and visual media. There are sufficiently strict guidelines for the latter. Unfortunately, social media enjoys a free reign in terms of content. One reason could be the large number of creators—virtually every user is one. However, this is not enough to keep social media out of the regulatory framework.
Like other media, social media platforms—about half a dozen of them at least—should be brought under strict regulations. Details of all social media users should be made identifiable by a unique marker such as the Aadhaar number. This identification should be made mandatory for social media platforms.
Unlike print and visual media, social media has a global outreach. The content on it can have an unknown or camouflaged origin. This is all the more reason why the regulations should be stricter and globally applicable.
Seshadri Chari is the former editor of ‘Organiser’. He tweets @seshadrichari. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)
If Mr. Chari and the Internet had been around the works of Copernicus and Galileo to name only two famous examples would have run into the orthodoxy of the day and been suppressed.
It is good that we have freedom of speech so that Mr. Chari is free to air his views and let us conclude that those who would suppress free speech, be it right or wrong, are no friends of humanity.
How is the government responsible for the “current state of TV news media”? Care to explain?
The Indian govt has never taken up the responsibility of moderating content on TV news channels. The channels self regulate through their industry associations. The Indian govt has got nothing to do with it.
It all started with the late Sushma Swaraj. She became the I & B minister during ABV regime and censored F TV. The morally upright parliamentarians who indulge in fighting, sloganeering, nuisance activities should be stripped naked and paraded on donkeys; their wealth confiscated to fund freebies.
There are people who whine as soon as they hear “government intervention”. It is laughable to listen to them because their behavior reeks of dissociation from societal realities. They behave as if government keeps eavesdropping on their whatsapp group jokes. Which it clearly doesn’t ! But when episodes like the recent ones happen, society including those excessively paranoid about government control , should sit up and take note where exactly the future is headed to. Merely brushing aside by giving excuses such a government is not promoting scientific temper hence let youngsters peddle soft porn does not cut ice ! It is myopic to jump at the mere utterance of “government intervention”. Those who balk at this thought are already bound by various other legislations ! One can no longer ignore the blatant dissemination of soft porn and vulgarity in the name of freedom of speech !
Yes, because the government of India is the epitome of morality and scientific temper. A government that promotes pseudoscience, imaginary history, and agenda-driven news is the perfect candidate for online content moderation, right?
There is no denying that harmful content exists on social media, and guidelines are necessary to address it. However, the government cannot—and should not—be the all-powerful online moderator. The current state of TV news media, is a perfect example of what happens when the government wields too much control.
Great, so just because of a terrible and copied joke, we need more government intervention in our life. There is a lot of wrong that is going on social media, but this isn’t the answer, especially not under this administration (or any possible administration for that matter)
Not just India’s Got Latent. A whole industry has sprung up peddling soft and hard porn, expletive laden “cool” language and what not. AltBalaji, Ullu and others must be prosecuted too. The directors and production houses must be arrested and fined for promoting vulgarity and obscenity in society.
Also, the stupidity that goes around under the guise of “influencers” must be dealt with strictly. India’s Got Latent is a wake up call. We must act before it’s too late.