Opinion | Why Social Media Platforms Must Share The Wealth Others Create For Them

At the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) Conclave 2026 recently, Union Minister for Electronics and IT, Information and Broadcasting and Railways, Ashwini Vaishnaw, addressed a deeply sensitive and increasingly urgent topic concerning the digital ecosystem. Speaking with conviction, he emphasised that social media platforms must equitably share revenue with those who fuel their growth through content creation. "Social media platforms must also share revenue in a fair way with the people who are creating the content, whether it is news persons, the conventional media, the creators sitting in far-flung areas, influencers, the professors and researchers who are disseminating their work using the platforms," he stated. His remarks were pointedly directed at the trillion-dollar global tech industry, carrying an unmistakable and firm warning: either act voluntarily and embrace fair compensation practices, or be prepared to face decisive government regulation. The message signalled that India is watching closely and is ready to act.

Big Money At Stake

The scale of what is at stake is staggering. India's digital advertising market generated approximately USD 13.6 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach USD 32.3 billion by 2030, growing at 15.3% annually. Digital now commands 44% of all advertising spend in India, overtaking television for the first time in FY2025. This torrent of money flows almost entirely to the platforms - the Googles, Metas, and YouTubes that aggregate and distribute content they did not pay to produce.

India's creator economy, valued at USD 20-25 billion by a 2025 Boston Consulting Group report, influences over USD 350 billion in annual consumer spending. There are an estimated 2-2.5 million active digital creators in India. Yet only 8-10% effectively monetise their work. YouTube spent nearly USD 2.5 billion in creator payouts across India over 2022-2024. That is substantial, until compared to what platforms earn from India's broader advertising ecosystem. The arithmetic is clear: creators generate the eyeballs, eyeballs generate the ad revenue, and the ad revenue flows overwhelmingly upward.

India's regulatory framework rests on the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The 2023 amendments tightened obligations around content moderation, grievance redressal, and algorithmic transparency for significant social media intermediaries - those with over five million registered users. The new IT Rules of 2026 go further, mandating that platforms label and remove AI-generated content within three hours, and placing "safe harbour" protections under Section 79 of the IT Act under greater scrutiny.

The Nature And Scope Of Content Has Changed

Vaishnaw made the philosophical shift explicit: "The time has gone when platforms could say they are not responsible for content. Platforms have changed from being pure intermediaries to becoming hosts to the world." What remains conspicuously absent from Indian law, however, is any statutory requirement for revenue sharing with creators or publishers. That is the gap Vaishnaw is pressing the industry to fill, voluntarily for now, legislatively if necessary.

In 2021, Australia enacted the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code, which has been the world's most-watched experiment in this space. At its peak, the Code channelled nearly AUD 250 million annually from platforms to news organisations. But the model proved fragile. In 2024, Meta declined to renew deals worth an estimated AUD 70 million per year to Australian outlets, triggering job cuts across newsrooms. Australia responded with a "News Bargaining Incentive" - effectively a 2.25% levy on platforms earning over AUD 250 million domestically, offsettable through voluntary publisher deals. The lesson for India is sharp: you can force platforms to the table, but you cannot always make them stay.

Going Local

What distinguishes Vaishnaw's call is its breadth. He did not stop at journalists or established media houses - he explicitly named influencers, professors, and researchers. This recognises that the content sustaining platform revenues is produced not just by professionals but by millions of ordinary Indians: teachers uploading lectures in regional languages, researchers sharing findings, micro-influencers in tier-2 cities generating hyper-local engagement. India has nearly 900 million internet users - the world's second-largest online market - and video accounts for 55% of mobile activity. If these creators cannot earn a sustainable living, the pipeline of authentic, locally relevant content will narrow. The platforms themselves will be poorer for it.

The case for fair revenue sharing is not moral alone - it is economic. Platforms and creators are mutually dependent. YouTube's Partner Programme, which has paid over USD 70 billion to creators worldwide, demonstrates the virtuous cycle: creators earn, invest back into content, drive more engagement, generate more advertising revenue, enabling higher payouts. The dysfunction comes when the power imbalance grows too wide - when platforms unilaterally change monetisation rules, demonetise content without appeal, or walk away from deals as Meta did in Australia. For large media conglomerates, such shocks are painful but survivable. For a journalist running a regional news channel or a professor whose academic reach depends on social media reach, they can be terminal.

Rebalance The Digital Economy

The answer is not to dismantle the platform economy but to rebalance it - through transparent revenue-sharing formulas, fair minimum payment thresholds, robust appeals mechanisms, and formal recognition that journalism is a public good, not merely content. Platforms have to realise that, journalistic or otherwise, content creation has to be supported by them significantly so that the emerging nature of journalism survives.

India has the leverage to act. With nearly 900 million internet users and one of the world's fastest-growing advertising markets, New Delhi is not a minor player in this negotiation. The demand for equitable revenue sharing has already been raised by the Indian Newspaper Society; formalising it would require navigating complex political and legal terrain - but the trajectory is clear. What is no longer tenable is the status quo, in which platforms harvest billions from Indian content and return a fraction to those who made it. Vaishnaw's speech signals that India is done asking politely. The platforms would do well to hear that, and to act before the law does it for them. Hopefully, the tech giants' ears are open.

(Subimal Bhattacharjee is a policy adviser on digital technology issues for corporations and government and former country head of General Dynamics.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author