BeerBiceps fiasco: How did influencers get to flex artificial muscles anyway?
Summary
- Amid the BeerBiceps fiasco starring Ranveer Allahbadia, let’s not forget the role of other interested parties in fostering wide disregard of truth and civility. The responsibility doesn’t lie with one person alone.
Emerging media platforms and traditional moral values never make for good bedfellows. The controversy that erupted over online influencer and podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia, his curiously named company BeerBiceps and some of his fellow travellers has consumed India’s content devouring population, evoking strong emotions and extreme views online.
Allahbadia’s soaring popularity came crashing down earlier this month when, as a judge on an online talent show, he indulged in a now-familiar trope: insulting and demeaning participants, all in the hope of getting a laugh from his audience.
This is common on reality shows: profanities and slurs hurled in the name of humour. These barbs are mostly harmless, occasionally stinging and almost always risqué in their attempt to extract a chuckle.
Some observers felt that Allahbadia crossed a limit that day, misusing India’s constitutionally-granted freedom of speech, and filed police complaints; another complainant’s objection, that his show is watched by children of all ages and his comments could be morally corrupting for them, seemed curiously comfortable with its previous episodes where expletives invoking the human anatomy were bandied about freely.
The courts seem convinced of Allahbadia’s guilt. But should he alone be held responsible? What about society’s role?
Also Read: We need to make freedom of speech low-brow in India
Sure, Allahbadia did make objectionable comments, but it might be worthwhile to pause and think about how various stakeholders in society might have encouraged him down that path. Indignation is easy and cheap, but introspection is tough; it requires society to look inward, identify flaws and correct course.
In recent years, various sections of society have lionized influencers for their legions of followers without any concern for the quality of their content. Advertisers of consumer products instigated some of them to side-step ethics of responsible communication. Politicians sought them out before the 2024 general elections, even bestowing Allahbadia with an award. Literature festivals, book publishers and film/TV studios have all rooted for influencers with large followings in their desire to reach out to the largest number of people at the lowest cost.
When acquiring audiences offers a path to quick riches, cheered on by vast segments of society, some influencers will surely be inclined to go down a slippery slope.
Also Read: Both Musk and his MAGA critics are wrong about free speech on microblog platform X
Freedom of expression is an elastic concept. Its stretch limits depend on the audience’s subjective evaluation. There are two ways of looking at it.
The liberal-democratic canon demands that regulators and courts grant enough latitude to the offender, and not respond only to those who take offence all too selectively. On the other hand, there is enough evidence to show how disruptive forces use fake news and untruths to divide society, sow disharmony and harvest votes based on hate.
Also Read: Freedom of speech at American universities is falling prey to doublespeak
A new show, Zero Day, exemplifies how an influencer with extreme political views traffics toxicity with the help of half-truths and outright lies to acquire followers and accumulate wealth offshore. In the end, the burden of responsibility should lie with viewers/listeners and the autonomy of their thumb on the on-off switch. They have the option of not following a particular show that hurts their sentiments.
Beyond that, though, the ultimate responsibility for abysmal standards on the internet lies with the country’s political class that has courted and emboldened producers of suspect content in the hope of gaining short-term electoral dividends.
