Objectionable content sore point for OTT industry

Streaming platforms have been under scrutiny ever since the government unveiled a new set of regulations for them in 2021, bringing the industry players under the ambit of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B). Many stakeholders saw this as a move to tighten the government's grip over these platforms and as an attack on freedom of expression.

Last week, in a meeting with representatives of OTT (over-the-top) platforms, I&B minister Anurag Thakur, reminded OTT players of their responsibility towards viewers to ensure that their platform does not promote vulgarity and abuse under the guise of 'creative expression'.

Various issues including content regulation, user experience, enhancing accessibility for the specially-abled and overall growth and innovation in the sector were discussed between the stakeholders at the event held in Delhi.

Bringing India's diversity into perspective, Thakur took to Twitter to emphasise that OTTs must also reflect the collective conscience of the country and provide a healthy viewing experience for people of all age groups. He also asked OTT representatives to be sensitive about India's cultural diversity as the government unleashes 'India’s creative economy'.

Sources told Fortune India that the meeting proved to be a forward-looking conversation wherein the minister sought unanimous suggestions from the industry on how to improve the guidelines.

IT Rules, 2021, the first formal policy framework for OCC (online content creators), seeks to regulate digital news publishers and OTT platforms that have a physical presence in India or conduct systematic business activity of making content available in the country. Regulating objectionable content also comes under its purview.

What is objectionable?

Is it possible to truly define objectionable content in the most precise, uncomplicated and objective manner? While certain kinds of content might be offensive to a particular section of society, others may not even bat an eyelid to it. Moreover, creative content cannot be looked at through one lens only; there are multiple complex layers. There is a huge difference between big players and small players as well – in the genus of content, ratings, self-regulation, and the overall DNAs of the companies; one shoe cannot fit all.

Industry experts too believe that there is no clarity on this issue. As per a report by The Dialogue in collaboration with Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), a majority of the experts highlighted the "need to re-evaluate the definitions of objectionable content such as half-truths, indecency, causing annoyance, etc."

The struggle lies therein. There are no guidelines on what the government deems as vulgar and indecent and to what degree they need to be regulated. For instance, a kiss between a homosexual couple can appear vulgar to some, while a bikini-clad woman can be construed as indecent by a section of society. Where does one draw the boundary?

The rules, which include terms like obscene, half-truths, indecency, are also subjective and ambiguous in nature. Hence, they have a direct impact on creative liberty and free speech and expression.

"Overall, the (IT) rules have been implemented well and they have helped in ensuring more accountability from these platforms," avers Shruti Shreya, one of the authors of the report. "However, some aspects of the rules can be made more robust, especially the definition of objectionable content," she adds.

It is necessary that the government zeroes in on the problems that the regulation aims to solve. The prevalent sentiment amongst majority stakeholders is that as a delegated legislation the rules should have more targeted guidelines for platforms to enforce comprehensive compliance.

Some, like Nitin Gupta, chief content officer of Chaupal, disagree. He says that as a multiregional OTT platform, they are capable of being more accountable to their consumers and are able to cater to the demands and predilections of different social groups efficiently.

What's ahead?

While the IT (Information Technology) Rules established a Grievance Appellate Committee to allow users to appeal against the inaction of, or decisions taken by the platforms, most consumers are unfamiliar with the concept and procedure both.

Industry experts have also stressed upon the need for greater emphasis on ensuring optimum use of grievance redressal mechanisms by the users.

"There is not much awareness amongst consumers regarding the redressal method and that causes a lot of confusion," says Gupta. He adds that people end up taking arbitrary measures such as filing FIRs and staging protests, which is not only unnecessary but also triggers a lot of hassle – mental, physical & financial – for both sides.

"It is paramount that the government, platforms and civil society work collaboratively to raise awareness and empower the users to use these mechanisms effectively for protecting their rights," suggests the report.

Ultimately, it is expected that the definition of objectionable content evolve over time to enable effective compliance from the platforms. The actual solution needs to be proposed by the industry, a solution that keeps into account the unified culture and diversity of the country.