Influencer Bill: Push for authenticity or control?

The new influencer Bill mandates that creators must show proof of their expertise, such as a degree, professional licence, or certification, if they wish to post about regulated topics.

The Chinese Cyberspace Administration claims that the rule attempts to prevent misinformation and shield the public from inaccurate or deceptive guidance.

This is not occurring in a vacuum. The action comes at a time when misinformation is a worldwide issue. If the last few years offer any indication, when an influencer blurs the distinction between opinion and competence, the repercussions can be severe.

Consider the Covid-19 pandemic, when false cures, antivax propaganda, and pseudoscience spread like wildfire, frequently fuelled by influencers with millions of followers but no medical experience.

Or the Ozempic fad that has erupted in Nairobi, pushed by social media influencers who promote it as a quick weight-loss option without considering the health risks. Financial misinformation has wiped out people’s savings. These results demonstrate why regulation became required.

While China’s approach is one of the most restrictive, it is not unique to China. In multiple markets, misinformation by well-known but unqualified content creators has raised concerns.

Platforms such as YouTube and Instagram have developed regulations to mark paid promotions and counteract misinformation, but enforcement is patchy. Google has its regulations.

Content classified as “your money or your life”, which includes issues such as health, finance, and legal advice, is subjected to tighter examination. It’s a reminder that the digital world is already beginning to hold creators accountable for their effects.

While the new regulation is intended to increase trust and accuracy, many critics see it as a new kind of digital censorship and a threat to free expression. So, where do we draw the line between creative freedom and public responsibility?

By limiting who can discuss particular topics, the government may be stifling independent voices and constraining the scope of public discourse, thereby reducing creativity and silencing voices that challenge the norm.

For example, who gets to judge what constitutes “expertise”? What happens to creators who question popular narratives but lack formal qualifications?

Subsequently, these changes will impact how content is created, vetted, and released.

Accountability will no longer be limited to creators; social platforms will be in charge of screening, storing influencer qualifications and verification, and brands must reconsider due diligence, signalling a shift from passive distributors of user material to regulatory censors.

Additionally, influencers may find the content that they prepare for one region being flagged or restricted in the other’s domain.

Brands will need to exercise great care in multi-market campaigns. Credential tracking systems may soon be integrated into influencer management platforms.

The proposed law achieves something subtle but significant: it establishes a distinction between influence and authority.

We are likely to enter a new era of digital legitimacy, in which verifiable competence will outweigh the number of followers, particularly in sectors where consumers are vulnerable to deception. This condition will influence how an audience engages with the content and how brands select ambassadors.

The implications of this rule may extend beyond China. The size of China’s digital economy is a major motivation for other markets to embrace the framework, resulting in the Beijing effect, as illustrated by Mr Jhanda’s move. Many people see the proposed Bill as an attack on the freedom of expression. The proposed Bill might be used to muzzle dissenters.

As the discussion progresses, it will put to the test the balance between protecting the public from harmful content and respecting the democratic ideals of limitation of rights and free expression that are important to Kenya’s emerging digital culture.

And it comes in the wake of recent controversial amendments to the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act 2024, which already provide the government broad authority to request the removal of Internet content.

Consequently, influencers may feel more pressure to become more professional. Those dealing with regulated areas may be required to provide proof of training, formal education, or certification. Such a transition may limit the number of people who may call themselves “influencers” in niche areas; but, it will surely raise the bar and, as a result, boost audience trust.

Mutua Mutuku, Partner Sisule & Associates LLP