By The Malketeer
A recent video circulating on Malaysian social media has stirred widespread outrage—and now, official scrutiny.
The clip, allegedly featuring local “influencers” offering food waste to a homeless man, has prompted the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) to launch a formal investigation.
In its statement, MCMC did not mince words.
The regulator condemned the “dissemination of content that demeans or insults the dignity of individuals,” warning that such stunts not only exploit marginalised communities but also risk normalising inhumane behaviour.
The act, seen by many as a grotesque attempt to gain social media traction, has ignited a firestorm of criticism across digital platforms.
Under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act, the creation or sharing of offensive or humiliating content carries serious consequences—including a possible two-year prison sentence or a fine of up to RM500,000.
The so-called influencer behind the video has since apologised, claiming that the homeless man had “agreed to help” them with the video and was later given a proper meal.
But that explanation has done little to quell the growing disgust from netizens and lawmakers alike.
When Empathy is Outsourced to Engagement Metrics
This is not just a story of poor judgement.
It is a sobering reminder of how algorithm-driven virality can incentivise cruelty disguised as content.
In the relentless race for relevance, some creators are now willing to sacrifice dignity for digital visibility—treating vulnerable human beings not as people, but as props in their pursuit of likes, shares, and views.
It also begs a difficult question for our industry: Where do we draw the line between content that provokes thought and content that provokes outrage?
For marketers, agencies, and brands, this moment should serve as more than a cautionary tale.
It should be a clear call to action—to rethink how we define influence, and who we choose to empower with our platforms and budgets.
Brand Safety Is No Longer Just About Compliance
In recent years, marketers have doubled down on brand safety—ensuring that campaigns don’t appear next to hate speech, misinformation, or inappropriate material.
But as influencer marketing matures into a billion-ringgit industry, we must expand this definition to include ethical safety.
Who we choose to partner with reflects who we are as a brand. Every influencer collaboration, no matter how small, carries reputational risk.
As such, rigorous vetting, values alignment, and accountability mechanisms should be non-negotiables—not just after a scandal erupts, but well before the camera starts rolling.
Because in this age of ultra-fast virality, damage travels faster than disclaimers.
A Time for Reflection and Reform
The incident is part of a troubling trend where marginalised groups are routinely exploited under the guise of “social experiments,” often framed as generosity but carried out in ways that dehumanise their subjects.
Whether it’s giving out food, cash, or unsolicited makeovers, these moments—no matter how well-intentioned—must be held to a higher standard of ethical clarity.
Empathy is not content. Poverty is not a prop.
And kindness, when filmed for clout, often ceases to be kind at all.
Rebuilding Trust in the Influencer Economy
As the influencer economy continues to boom, brands and agencies need to lead the way in resetting the standards. That includes:
This latest episode should not merely be another viral outrage cycle. It should be a moment of industry introspection—one that forces us to ask, not what content will go viral, but what content should.
Because if influence is power, then with it must come humility, accountability, and a basic respect for human dignity.
Share Post:
Haven’t subscribed to our Telegram channel yet? Don’t miss out on the hottest updates in marketing & advertising!
