In the age where content is current, influence is power. Power that comes with responsibility, as it can shape minds, move markets, and shatter lives with a single swipe.
It began with a TikTok video — light-hearted, engaging — seemingly harmless.
A young content creator, charismatic and effortlessly relatable, uploads her latest GRWM (Get Ready With Me) clip. Between dabs of foundation and spritzes of setting spray, she casually introduces a little golden vial, sponsored by a trending local brand. Her secret, she claims, to firm, youthful, flawless skin. It’s natural, she says. “Safe enough to drink”, she adds almost nonchalantly, before passing a swig past her pouting lips.
No side effects mentioned. No disclaimers offered. No substantiation provided for the claim. The video goes viral. The comments flood in.
“Kak, mana beli?”
“I wan!”
“Tolong share link….plssss!”
She replies with a winking emoji and a promo link.
The product sells out. The brand racks up sales. The content creator becomes the latest darling among advertisers, now courted by even bigger brands eager to tap into her magnetic reach. Everyone’s happy. Everyone wins.
Until a teenage girl falls seriously ill. Kidney failure. She had bought the serum and drunk it, believing what she saw on her screen. What she didn’t know was that, despite the “natural ingredients” label, the serum contained undeclared traces of Phenol – a harsh chemical added to induce that instant skin-tightening effect.
What started as simple, creative content spiralled into real-world consequences
What she also didn’t know was that the influencer hadn’t actually drunk the serum at all. She had staged the moment purely for effect, using a mock vial filled with milk.
And then came more reports. More girls falling ill.
What started as simple, creative content — misleading, yes, but not maliciously intended — spiralled into real-world consequences, permanently scarring lives.
This story may be fictional. But the risks it describes are very real. Well beyond mere possibility, in the blurred space between content and consequence. In a world where attention is currency, content isn’t just entertainment anymore. It has the power to sway opinions, influence financial decisions, and impact wellbeing. And so, the stakes are by no means trivial.
Regulations are needed, now, more than ever. Not as a tool to suppress or control; but as a safeguard, guardrails that protect not only consumers but businesses, brands, and platforms themselves from the shadows of unintended harm.
Any form of communication intended to inform, persuade, or influence — irrespective of its medium or mode — bears the obligation for ethical self-regulation
This isn’t about TikTok or social media. It’s not just about digital marketing or influencers either. It goes beyond. Beyond platforms or channels even.
Any form of communication intended to inform, persuade, or influence — irrespective of its medium or mode — whether expressed through words, images, sounds, experiences, or the ever-evolving variation of innovative hybrids, bears the same obligation for ethical self-regulation, as they can shape perceptions and behaviour. It isn’t exclusive to specific product or service categories either.
Any statement reflected in any piece of content; without checks, disclaimers, or oversight, can carry grievous real-world consequences.
Strong regulation shields consumers. But it also shields businesses from reputational disasters and legal fallout. It guides platforms grappling with the ethical responsibility that comes with algorithm-driven amplification.
Centralised regulations often revert to a pre-approval model, but the bureaucratic infrastructure it demands becomes so bloated, it can collapse under its own weight, grinding industries to a halt.
Globally, regulatory approaches vary. Some are rigid, heavily centralised, requiring pre-approvals before publication. But with the sheer scale and velocity of marketing messages being churned out today, across every imaginable platform, the bureaucratic infrastructure it would demand would be so bloated, it would collapse under its own weight, grinding industries to a halt. Some take a more reactive approach, only stepping in after harm has been done – by which point, of course, it’s often too late.
And then there’s self-regulation.
Agile. Industry-led. Forward-thinking.
It places the responsibility for compliance on businesses, media platforms, and creators themselves. Supported by codes of practice built on law, ethics, and best practices, it’s the most realistic solution for coping with the landscape shifts, and ever-growing content universe efficiently.
Armed with sanctions and penalties, it has bite too. It promises a freer, yet fairer ecosystem. Self-regulation moves at the pace of innovation, and its codes informed, reviewed and updated by those who understand the industries best.
On paper… it’s brilliant!
And yet, despite its elegance, and decades of practice, one fundamental flaw continues to plague self-regulation – it is, at its core, voluntary.
This is its Achilles’ heel.
Self-regulation moves at the pace of innovation, and its codes are informed, reviewed and updated by those who understand the industries best, but critics accuse it of being a shield against real accountability.
It relies on goodwill. On a shared sense of responsibility. But in a real-world ecosystem driven by profit, attention, and competition, not everyone will choose to comply. Not everyone will do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing to do. So, ultimately it only binds those who choose to subscribe, rendering even the most sophisticated frameworks vulnerable to inconsistency and ineffectiveness.
A system is only as strong as its adaptation.
Perhaps in a utopian world, voluntary compliance would be enough. But in such a realm, we probably wouldn’t have need for regulations or codes at all. Critics often accuse self-regulation of being little more than a fig leaf – a shield against real accountability.
It’s obvious when self-regulation isn’t applied. However, when self-regulation is applied sincerely, it works silently.
And while that’s not entirely fair, it is understandable. It’s more obvious when self-regulation isn’t applied. What’s never been evaluated, however, is the probable impact had self-regulation not been applied by those who willingly complied. For when self-regulation is applied sincerely, it works silently.
What are the alternatives?
Censorship? Pre-vetting? If these models couldn’t cope decades ago, they certainly can’t handle today’s marketing volumes. While detractors can be faulted for focusing on the flaws, proponents can just as well be accused of defending a comfortable situation too. They could also be deluded in their vision — mistaking intent for effectiveness.
In Malaysia, The Malaysian Code of Advertising Practice (MCAP) and the Content Code are frameworks that already exist as living, breathing documents, constantly adapting, aligned with the spirit of consumer protection, ethical standards, and evolving norms. Both strive to offer guidance grounded in law and ethics. But they are not identical.
The Malaysian Code of Advertising Practice is moderated internally by the industry, its domain is extensive, covering any and all physical forms of marketing communication that is not distributed through electronic networked media. The Content Code, by contrast, is backed by legal recognition and is steered by the Content Forum, its jurisdiction is limited to only content transmitted over electronically networked media.
The MCAP operates purely on a voluntary basis, moderated internally by the industry through Advertising Standards Malaysia (ASA), without legislative mandate. Its domain is extensive, covering any and all physical forms of marketing collateral, experiential marketing, and messaging, that is not distributed through electronic networked media. Which means it oversees everything from print ads, point-of-sale (POS) materials, static out-of-home, vehicle livery, direct mailers… right to the labels on products!
The Content Code, by contrast, is backed by legal recognition under the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA), and is steered by the Content Forum, a multi-stakeholder body drawing from industry, civic groups, academia, with government oversight. Its jurisdiction is limited to all content transmitted over electronically networked media, and compliance is mandatory under the license conditions for all broadcasters and telcos, operating in Malaysia. Beyond that, much of the wider ecosystem — brands, businesses, content creators — compliance remains voluntary to those who subscribe.
If our intent is truly to protect consumers and build a sustainable ecosystem, then the very model of regulation must be open to reevaluation and evolution.
While both bodies work to uphold standards, the limits of voluntary compliance, especially in broader industry contexts, remain a real and pressing challenge. The codes they operate by are applicable only to those who choose to subscribe, or are tied by licence condition to abide. Which means there is an alternate ecosystem of practitioners that does not abide, simply because they don’t have to.
This distinction might even lure some who choose to abide to question themselves, when outcomes are not favourable for their commercial objectives.
Actions must match intent.
If our intent is truly to protect consumers and build a sustainable ecosystem, then perhaps the real focus should not be on defending or discarding self-regulation. Instead, just as codes themselves are required to be reviewed and evolve with the norms and needs of the times, so too must their very model be open to reevaluation and evolution. Maybe, just maybe, the solution isn’t at the extremes.
If the codes are sound and practical, then perhaps the next frontier is about confronting and overcoming its failings honestly.
If the codes are sound and their practical application is viable, then perhaps the next frontier is about strengthening these best parts of self-regulation – and confronting and overcoming its failings honestly.
Let’s explore a ‘what if?’
Imagine a new model of self-regulation, where compliance isn’t voluntary, but mandatory. The code acts as guardrails that every content creator and business operating in Malaysia — big or small — is legally required to comply with, much like the existing license condition requirement imposed on broadcasters and telcos currently. This would establish a clear, universal baseline that all have to comply with.
The codes would be co-created by industry, civil society, academia, with public consultation, and government oversight. They would be constantly and continuously reviewed and updated to remain relevant to the needs and norms of the times.
While application is self-regulatory in nature — leaving the responsibility of compliance to the content creators and business owners — it would be a statutory requirement, rather than voluntary. Every content piece that is produced. Every marketing collateral. Regardless of platform, or medium, would have to adhere to the code, or face real and firm consequences of fines, sanctions, and even public disclosure.
It would not be heavy-handed censorship. Enforcement wouldn’t need bloated bureaucracy, but smart, scalable, and focused.
Above that excellence could be rewarded, where responsible creators and brands gain competitive advantages, and consumers know who they can trust making good actors the norm, not the exception!
Above that baseline, imagine if excellence was rewarded — through certifications, public recognition, faster regulatory approvals, and maybe even financial incentives — an ecosystem where good behaviour isn’t just expected, but rewarded!
Where responsible creators and brands gain competitive advantages, and consumers know who they can trust.
Technology adoption would be critical, with AI-assisted monitoring for digital content, helping flag potential violations before they spread, allowing human monitoring and oversight to be focused where it’s most needed – on physical forms of marketing messaging and more nuanced issues.
This model of ‘Incentivised Co-Regulation’ is not radical. It’s not a revolution… merely evolution.
It would be smarter. Fairer. Based on principle, pragmatism, and an understanding of today’s complex realities. It wouldn’t be perfect. No system ever is. But it could make good actors the norm, not the exception.
It would ‘lift the floor and raise the ceiling’, self-regulation at heart but with structure and a spine!
It would also offer a built-in mechanism of ‘lifting the floor and raising the ceiling’, which would truly provide the opportunity to continuously improve the standards universally.
This would empower ASA and the Content Forum to act on breaches across the ecosystem, not selectively – with the force of law behind them.
Sanctions could escalate appropriately, from education to fines, to public disclosures, but merely as a deterrent. Enforcement would be routine, transparent, and consistent – not reactionary or politicised. It would still be self-regulation at heart, but with structure and a spine!
Neither idealistic nor cynical, it strikes a balance where actions truly align with intent.
Trust would no longer be a casualty of clicks. Accountability will not kill creativity. It would enhance and protect it.
The ripple effects would be far-reaching. Health claims would be rigorously honest. Financial promotions would be transparent. Influencer marketing would have to evolve – not silenced, but sharpened. Trust would no longer be a casualty of clicks. Accountability will not kill creativity. It would enhance and protect it.
Could it work?
Seatbelts are mandatory aren’t they, and yet it is left to the individual to wear them, there’s no pre-vetting of wearing a seatbelt before a vehicle can move. But if you’re found not wearing your seatbelt, then you face a penalty.
Of course, turning this vision into reality won’t be without its challenges. Reforming laws, reshaping structures like ASA, and unifying oversight across mediums will demand more than just intent — it’ll demand real collaboration across sectors long used to working in silos.
Should complexity be permitted to remain an excuse for inaction?
It won’t happen overnight. It will take time, effort, industry and political will. But should complexity be permitted to remain an excuse for inaction? The real question isn’t whether it’s easy, but whether it’s needed. Why shouldn’t the guardrails of our practices in marketing be regulated in a similar manner?
If its voluntary nature is greatest weakness of self-regulation, then making it mandatory — intelligently, pragmatically — must be the next logical step.
The Content Code already has most of its building blocks and much of its foundation, if its jurisdiction could be extended to encompass all forms of marketing communications; rather than be structurally prejudiced to networked communications solely, it would ensure no medium of communication is excluded from from necessary oversight.
However, the regulation of marketing communications being divided by delivery mode, would be a critical challenge. While the Content Code could evolve into this model as it already has most of its building blocks and much of its foundation, for the MCAP that regulates a far larger domain, it would call for an overhaul!
But is it doable? Yes!
What would it need?
ASA would have to be transformed into a likeness of the Content Forum, thereby ensuring consumers are truly protected across the marketing ecosystem. Alternatively, the CMA could encompass all forms of marketing communications rather than be structurally prejudiced to networked communications, ensuring no medium of communication is excluded from from necessary oversight.
This would then enable the extensive domain covered by the ASA to be absorbed within the jurisdiction of the Content Forum, with the Content Code as the unifying standard of ethical and operational governance, ensuring a cohesive, future-proof framework that transcends the myopic silos of medium and mode of transmission.
Above all, there must be a realisation that we should be driven by the need to protect consumers, and not jurisdictional fiefdoms!
Instead, what we witness is a relentless churn of overlapping regulations, birthed from empowerment rather than necessity; enforceable only within confined jurisdictions, they parade authority… leaving functionality in neglect. Creating more confusion than clarity.
This is about seeking to identify an equitable and credible solution.
Of course, what’s proposed here isn’t a definitive solution. It was never meant to be. It’s meant to serve as a starting point for the conversation. A call to ask better questions even. A challenge for legislators, industry, civic groups, academia, and society, to question intent, and act accordingly perhaps? This isn’t about defending self-regulation, but about seeking to identify an equitable and credible solution.
It’s a call for discourse, exploration, experimentation, and co-creation. Maybe the next step isn’t a policy memo, but a series of roundtables, industry workshops, and public consultations. Spaces where the industry, regulators, content creators, and consumers come together, not to take sides, defend turf or cling to status quo, but to shape something new; to find a solution that truly works, adapting for nuances of the ecosystem and needs of the times. To find balance between innovation and accountability. Between creativity and credibility. Between freedom and fairness.
We must acknowledge the complexities, but must also insist that all those who shape public perception be held to public standards… not just the few who willingly comply.
It is time to consider a new model of regulation; one that’s fair but firm, creative yet credible. A model not just fit for our time, but one that evolves with the times.
The opportunity is here. The choice, as always… ours.
