New Delhi: Anupam Mittal, the founder and CEO of People Group and a familiar face on Shark Tank India, has sparked a new dimension to the ongoing controversy surrounding YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia's remarks on the show 'India's Got Latent'.
Mittal has called for YouTube, alongside the individuals involved, to be brought to court, arguing that the platform's role in enabling and even promoting such content cannot be overlooked.
The controversy centres around comments made by Allahbadia during an episode of the YouTube show hosted by comedian Samay Raina. The remarks, deemed offensive and vulgar by many, led to multiple FIRs against Allahbadia, Raina, and other participants including Apoorva Mukhija.
The Supreme Court recently heard Allahbadia's plea to consolidate these FIRs and granted him interim protection from arrest while expressing strong disapproval of his comments.
Mittal took to LinkedIn to critique not only the content creators but also the platforms that host such content. In his post, he remarked, "Summon YouTube to the High Court too, not just Ranveer and Apoorva. The show was never meant to be a highbrow discourse. It was always about insults, vulgarity, irreverence, and shock. Like it or hate it, that was the show." He further questioned the accountability of platforms like YouTube, pointing out that they thrive on controversy yet absolve themselves of responsibility when such backlash occurs.
He highlighted the parental control issues, stating, "YouTube is the worst offender. I have parental controls set up for my 7-year-old, yet I’m shocked at the age-inappropriate content that keeps showing up." Mittal's critique raises questions about the effectiveness of current regulatory mechanisms for online content and whether they adequately protect younger audiences from explicit materials.
The Supreme Court's recent handling of the case against Allahbadia has already set a precedent where platforms might need to reassess their content moderation policies. By restricting Allahbadia from airing any further shows, the court indirectly acknowledged the influence of such platforms in content dissemination.