It’s the end of a free run for social media influencers

livemint.com:

Subscribe to enjoy similar stories. In recent years, social media influencers have emerged as powerful voices in the marketplace, capable of shaping consumer opinions and driving trends. However, a recent court ruling serves as a crucial reminder that being a social media influencer is not a licence to operate without accountability or responsibility.

The case in question revolves around the increasingly popular trend of de-influencing, where influencers advise their followers against purchasing certain products. The de-influencing movement encourages consumers to reconsider their purchases, pushing back against over-commercialization and promoting thoughtful consumption. On the surface, this seems like a positive development, allowing influencers to foster authenticity and transparency.

However, the line between genuine critique and sensationalism can be thin. De-influencing can easily slip into the latter and become a vehicle for unsubstantiated claims or personal biases, risking the very trust it seeks to cultivate among online audiences. Recent trends in de-influencing have drawn particular attention to food brands, which find themselves at the receiving end of aggressive critiques.

Some influencers have taken to social media to mock these brands, labelling their products as “sugar-bombs" or “cancerous." When such statements are made without scientific evidence or without appropriate expertise, they can lead to unnecessary fear-mongering among consumers. In today’s digital landscape, where misinformation can spread like wildfire, the risks of unchecked opinions are significant. The algorithms that govern social media often favour sensationalist content, amplifying messages that may lack authenticity or accuracy.