Existential Crisis: New Laws for Digital Influencers Under Draft Broadcast Bill?

"They're trying to control the Internet. And anybody who has tried to control the Internet has not succeeded. But here people have gotten a taste of the free Internet already. Right? We have grown up as young people to see the Internet going from dial-up to what it is today," said Meghnad, a content creator, social media influencer, and formerly a journalist.

The government had drafted a new Broadcast Bill which would affect social media influencers, digital news broadcasters, and content creators, to

The Bill, a version of which was accessed by Hindustan Times and Medianama, would have impacted online streaming services, social media accounts and online content creators from across the globe under the regulations of the Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

While the proposed Bill was not made public and a draft of the same was sent to select stakeholders, including streaming services and major tech firms, a move which creators and journalists have thoroughly criticised.

On Badi Badi Baatein, Meghnad, senior journalist Faye D'Souza, and social media influencer Dr Medusssa explain how it may affect them and the nature of digital content creation.

What was your first thought on the Bill?

D'Souza: Well, first of all, I must point out that I have seen a version of the bill that has leaked on the Internet. In this case, we don't know if we're looking at the real thing. We're looking at a thing that has leaked on the Internet, and we're responding to that. So that, I think, is the first caveat we should put out. 

So, for those of us who are already part of a structure, who've been doing this for a while, we're part of the Digi Pub association. We have a lot of the self-regulation already in place. This is going to really hurt, in my mind, a lot of the newer news producers, people who are just starting out, people especially, who are doing this in various languages across the country. It's going to make being an independent journalist extremely difficult.  

Meghnad: To be perfectly honest, I laughed a lot I was. It was hilarious to read it. Because it's very unrealistic. 

They're trying to control the Internet. And anybody who has tried to control the Internet has not succeeded. But here people have gotten a taste of the free Internet already. Right? We have grown up as young people to see the Internet going from dial-up to what it is today.  

Dr Medusa: The first thought: I was like, “Oops. That's it. That's the end of the line for us”. Because the definitions are so vague and they are so, you know, all-encompassing. It's just mind-boggling. When I saw the language of the bill, and how it was used to encompass almost everything under the sun.

But there are several clauses in the proposed Bill like expecting creators to have a content evaluation committee which will have to approve the content before it goes out, or appoint a grievance redressal officer for yourself, the practical applicability of which is severely questionable, right? 

Faye: So I think for me the most bizarre thing is the Content Evaluation Committee. Now, from the version that I have read, it appears that it will not apply to news producers, but it will apply to everybody who is not a news producer on the Internet. So I'm assuming, from my interpretation, anyone who is doing travel content, someone who is doing fitness content, a doctor who's putting out advice on Instagram, you know all of these influencers, everybody on YouTube who's doing content that is not news, will actually have to spend an inordinate amount of money to put together a Content Evaluation Committee for your organization that approves each and every video before it's uploaded and published. Whoever wrote this rule is obviously not fully familiar with how online content works. 

Meghnad: There are some weird clauses in there like it has global applicability for some reason. So, Mr. Beast will have to constitute a content evaluation committee. I don't know, maybe Trump will have to be a broadcaster, also register as a broadcaster. We have to assign a grievance redressal officer, which means that there is a dude I have to hire who will take complaints from my trolls and critics, and whoever. Now, I'm thinking - firstly I don’t have the money to hire a grievance redressal officer. Seriously, I'm trying to pay rent guys right now. 

Dr Medusa: Because when you hear broadcasting, or when you hear the word broadcasting or broadcaster, you imagine this huge channel, or this huge machinery that has all these satellites and these anchors who have like packages of Rs. 2 Crore and so on and so forth. Apparently, somebody with one phone like me, one earphone like this mic, whatever it is, and a ring light, is also a broadcaster. Not just me, my fufaji, he also is a broadcaster because he has this Whatsapp group, which has more than 2 people. So yeah, he is also a broadcaster.  

But then, let's get real... The people who are doing all kinds of content on social media... Be it a dentist from Mumbai with lakhs of followers who gives dental advice and monetises his content or a woman from a tribal village in Jharkhand whose content you love... Can both have the same means to be able to form a content evaluation committee or appoint a grievance redressal officer? Won't such stringent curbs on influencers impact free and fair right to use social media? 

Faye: I don't think that someone who is putting dance videos out from interior Jharkhand or Uttar Pradesh can be asked to register with the Government in one month's time. I do think that it's been done to largely put a chilling effect. What it will mean is that powerful people will stop commenting on the news. To prosecute with process- anyone who's on the Internet right now, everybody will sort of pull back and say, 'Hey, you know what? I'm not going to share Eshwar's video, even though I think it's really cool.' And there's an understanding that the ability to get shared a lot is what gives Eshwar's video power. 

Meghnad: License Raj, right? Which is like right now, a creator can just take a phone, do a video. But then, if this bill comes to pass, initially they might be able to do it, but then, at some point they will have to register- if they cross a certain threshold, if they go viral, if they start earning money. So, obviously, you know, people will be discouraged. They will be like, “It’s government work. Why even bother?” 

And if this Bill becomes law, what is the kind of content that you will not be able to do and us as followers won't be able to consume? 

Dr Medusa: Everything. Because you know what? There's a line about what kind of content will be…yeah. Because, of course, we know the cable TV act about things being decent, about things not being against social harmony and etc. So those things will definitely fall on us, because, first of all, then there is also this one line about innuendo and double meaning, and things not being directly….which, of course, is what satire is. 

Meghnad: So, the program code that we have right now is from the Cable TV Act which we had, which I have to comply to. It has really bizarre things like a program should be made in good taste. A program should not incite anti-national feelings. A program should not have innuendos and half-truths. Basically, I can't make jokes anymore. I can't do all these things. 

Faye: So I don't believe that any of the content that I do will get affected because it's news. It's fact-checked news. I stand by all of the content that I put out. I do believe that this law actually leaves a lot of room for selective implementation, which is fancy words for harassment really. So what it does is it says that, 'Oh, we will decide this later, and we will decide who gets exempted, and we will decide whether or not we want to accept your renewal, or whether we want to suspend your registration',  which basically means a License Raj. 

In all honesty, aren't there enough laws, regulations, and several forms of pushback and resistance that influencers and content creators already face?

Faye: So see, as the rules stand right now, we're all already registered with the government of India as producers of digital content. We're required to have grievance officers within our organization who will handle grievances. We're required to be part of a self-regulatory body. And if someone who writes to us with a grievance feels that the grievance has not adequately been addressed, they can then address that grievance to the I&B Minister or the ministry as well. Now this setup already exists.  

Meghnad: So, one of the things is, of course, because platforms tend to block channels. Platforms tend to censor people based on what the government is telling them to do. I mean, they might be under pressure, whatever it is. But I mean, if Google can't handle pressure, then someone like me can? Is that a thing? Why can't Google handle the pressure? It's Google! What is this nonsense? Right? 

And the other sort of curbs that we have is there are already existing laws. There is UAPA, there is PMLA, there is police. Now under BNS, I can be declared a terrorist also. 

Dr Medusa: Of course, there are so many, because it's the Internet, and it's a democratic space for anybody to come and abuse you as well. And being a woman on the Internet, with my face out on the Internet, there are so many things we already face. And with this particular bill, I think one of the major fears which I have is the legal ability in the hands of the troll.  

So, if the leaked contents of the Bill are actually something that the government is looking to do, what may be the motive behind it? Is it a repercussion of the kind of role that social media, influencers and digital broadcasters played in the Lok Sabha elections?

Faye: So I don't know if there's been enough time between the election results and this viral leaked draft Bill for us to draw that conclusion. We do know that it's been in the works for a while. The previous draft we saw was in December, and there has been sort of a bubbling need to also control social media. The way that they have managed to control television news, for example, which is to silence the voices that are speaking and coddle the voices that are being nice to you. 

Meghnad: You know, the funny thing is, of course, it has global applicability. But we all know who they are trying to target. You know they somehow seem to have convinced themselves that Dhruv Rathee is a big problem. And he lives outside.  So, Dhruv Rathee, me, Ravish, Medussa - all these people are operating in an environment which is already rife for anti-establishment criticism. People don't have jobs, there are paper leaks, trains are derailing, infrastructure is crumbling. People are angry, they are looking for people who are expressing that anger and with the same outrage and emotion that they feel. We are people who are doing that. These creators are the problem now. They want some reason to explain away their defeat. 

Dr Medussa: If you have read the bill, there is a section there which talks about how the Government can relax these rules for anyone that they deem to have some genuine reason. Now, what is this genuine reason, this genuine hardship? It has not been mentioned. So it is completely up to the discretion of the Government whether they want to relax these rules for anyone or not.

And most importantly, if something like this comes into force, it is also going to massively impact the social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, along with several digital media stakeholders... So, what are these platforms planning to do about it?

Meghnad: I'm hoping with this campaign that the platforms do come on our side. Because honestly, we are the creators who are making content for you. We are getting you eyeballs. The eyeballs are watching ads. You are earning money because of us. So please be on our side.We are technically trying to save your business.  

Faye: I think the platforms have a great deal of stake, and they should resist. But unfortunately, track record has shown that they're not so keen to resist. Up to now, India is a very important market for these platforms, whether we're talking about Google or we're talking about Meta or we're talking about Twitter. We know that all the big guys in these companies have regular meetings with the Indian Government, and they're sort of in agreement with the fact that they've been told very clearly that if you want to do business in India, you have to follow the Indian laws.  

Dr Medusa: When you censor content like this, when you create these extremely stringent rules about what kind of content is going to be presented, the variety reduces, the kind of content which is produced also reduces, the creativity in this content also reduces, right? Because how many dance reels can you see? How many music reels can you see? How many bigoted Hindu versus Muslim reels will you see? You need variety in the content that you consume as well. 

So, how must India's strengthened Opposition react? 

Faye: The opposition has been talking about the fact that it's here to protect the democratic institutions that are the building blocks of this country. This, I mean, the Free Press, is a massive democratic institution. The right to free speech is a fundamental right in our country. The opposition needs to stand up and exercise whatever influence it has, both within the media and inside of Parliament, to make its voice heard, and to make a stout argument for the fact that this sort of law just cannot be brought into force in a country like ours. 

Meghnad: Me and Dr. Medusa and a few other people, we have been trying to reach out to MPs. We met Priyanka Chaturvedi, we met Sanjay Singh, we met the AIPC head which is Pravin Chakraborti. Now, we want to do that which is like, first, let's educate our MPs. It is basically an existential crisis for us. We have to do this.