What China Did
China introduced sweeping rules for online influencers. Those who provide advice in fields such as finance, medicine, law, or education must now show formal qualifications (a professional licence, a degree, or certification) before hosting content on platforms. Platforms must verify credentials and tag AI-generated content, with penalties for violations.
That move has its defenders , they argue it will tame misinformation, protect vulnerable citizens, and stop amateurs from posing as experts. And it has its critics , they warn of stifling speech, of excluding voices grounded in lived experience rather than formal certification, of creating gatekeepers of knowledge.
India’s Digital Landscape: Familiar, Yet Different
In India, the DPDP law centres on how personal data is collected, processed, and protected , how consent is handled, how platforms are held accountable, and how user privacy is safeguarded. What it doesn’t do is ask: “Who is allowed to speak on social media when it comes to advice?”
We already have regulations on advertising and endorsements (via the Advertising Standards Council of India and consumer protection laws). Still, no law requires that an influencer with a million followers discussing investment strategies hold a chartered accountant’s licence, or that a “wellness guru” discussing treatment options have a medical degree.
Why This Matters — Especially in India
India is uniquely positioned as a vast, multilingual, multicultural digital environment. Many voices offering advice come from informal expertise, community networks, regional languages, and lived experience rather than Ivy League credentials. That’s a strength , it’s inclusive, diverse, rooted in context. But it’s also a vulnerability. Been there: a viral post promising a miracle cure, a “hot tip” on investment gone wrong. The potential for real harm is there.
So we’re faced with a dilemma: how to protect citizens from harmful advice without extinguishing the spark of diverse voices that make India’s digital discourse rich?
A Middle Path for India
Rather than a blanket credential-requirement like China’s, India might consider a tiered approach:
- Influencers who explicitly claim“professional expertise” in regulated fields (medicine, legal, financial advice) are required they display or link to verified credentials (license, certification) or clearly state they are not certified.
- Require stronger, clearer disclosures when content is paid-for, AI-generated, or high-risk (e.g., “This is for information only”, “Not certified advice”).
- Increase platform responsibility: when content is potentially harmful, the platform should enable flagging and swift removal of misleading advice.
- Use sectoral regulators, for example, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) for investment advice, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for nutrition claims, and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for financial advice.
The Take-Away
We must ask ourselves: What kind of Internet do we want? One where only officially credentials-bearing voices are heard? Or one where diverse voices can speak, but with transparency, accountability, and user awareness?
India has the chance to learn from China’s experiment and also to chart its own path, one respectful of constitutional freedoms, grounded in our pluralism, yet rigorous enough to protect people from digital harm. If we tighten credentials, we risk excluding grassroots voices. If we do nothing, we risk letting misinformation flourish unchecked.
A Thought to Leave You With
India’s challenge isn’t just to prevent misinformation , it’s to protect digital expression without diluting its diversity. The DPDP Act offers a foundation for digital trust. Still, as we enter an age where social media shapes real-world decisions, we must ask: “Should the Internet reward only the “qualified,” or can wisdom still come from experience, storytelling, and community voices?”