In poor taste: Influence without ownership

The recent incident involving an influencer and the peddling of obscene content has validated concerns over the abuse of social media. From connecting people through groups, messages, shared photos, videos etc., to sharing opinions and ideas, social media platforms have played a seminal role in community building. Gradually, besides communication and networking, these platforms became an important tool for creating brand awareness, business promotion through data collection and market research. Unfortunately, promoting education, knowledge and fostering a scientific temperament were some areas social media platforms were put to minimum use.

The worst form of use of social media has been to promote surrogate advertising and that too through blatantly vulgar, irresponsible and socially unacceptable content. The obscene comments by an influencer have exposed the rot that is setting in through some sections of social media. Over the years, advertising has emerged as an important tool to promote business and increase sales. The print media and then, radio and television, emerged as popular channels of advertising. The use of social media platforms for advertising is a recent development.

The 24/7 access to social media has compelled these platforms to provide avenues for a regular supply of content to attract eyeballs and augment revenue. The investment to revenue ratio in social media platforms is fairly high compared to other business ventures. Creators of content in multiple areas – from politics to food to fashion – started joining in to make a modest income. To this extent, there was not much to worry about. But soon, sharks in the advertisement and related industries sniffed the profit and legal loopholes and began indulging in surrogate advertising, thus avoiding the rules of the game and evading taxes on the revenue generated. Innocuous content creators yielded a place to a new breed called influencers who began to gain popularity by hosting politicians and movie stars.

Endorsement of products and services by celebrities was the norm in advertising which conformed to the existing laws and regulations. But the influencers used the appeal of such personalities, gradually created a niche status and in turn, became celebrities themselves. With millions of viewers from different strata of the society forming the audience, some of the influencers are now broadcasting crass and insensitive content under the pretext of humour, unfit to be viewed by the overwhelming majority. There is no filter or censorship; unlike mainstream media, these platforms are difficult to be brought under regulation because of two features. One, the content could be originating from anywhere in the world. Two, the vast number of viewers and their heterogeneity also make regulation tough.

There are sufficiently strict guidelines for the print and visual media like the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1955, the Press Council of India Act, 1978, and Cable Television Networks (Amendment) Rules, 2006, among others, that act as filters and primary legislations to control the content of advertisements to ensure that they should not offend morality, decency and religious susceptibilities of the consumers. Social media platforms and influencers who violate all norms of public decency and social norms should also be brought under the regulatory framework. Besides, the relevant ministries and departments of the government should seriously consider bringing the revenue derived from such surrogate advertisements as part of regular advertisement income.

The Supreme Court, while hearing a bail plea of one the errant influencers who recently became infamous for airing obscene content, admonished the trend of using social media for spreading unfiltered filth. Criticising the rogue influencers in strong words, the apex court went to the extent of suggesting to the government to frame regulations to rein in social media. “Would not overlook the importance and sensitivity of the issue”, warned the court, suggesting that it could suo motu frame regulations if the government is faltering on the issue.

From printing press to telegraph, radio, telephone, television and now the internet, communication, networking and entertainment have evolved and will morph into faster variants in the future. The consumer and the society need to be sufficiently insulated from ‘compulsory exposure’ to obscenity and avoid falling prey to moral decay. Certainly, ‘society cannot be taken for granted’, as the Supreme Court opined.