Ethics and Influencers – Loud and Viral vs. Smart and True

There’s a charming illusion of the modern age: that “the public” is something that simply happens once you have enough followers. Click, upload, story, reel — and there you are, in the public sphere. No introduction. No exam. No briefing on responsibility. As if someone handed you a megaphone and said: here, shout whatever you like — the audience is used to it anyway.

The problem is that the public sphere is no longer a square, a hall, or a studio. The public sphere is a feed. And a feed does not distinguish the smart from the loud, the accurate from the emotional, or the responsible from the viral. It distinguishes only one thing: will it be shared?

And that’s where ethics becomes inconvenient. Not because it’s irrelevant, but because it slows things down. And algorithms do not like slow.

Public Words Without Public Responsibility

There was a time when entering the public arena was filtered. Not everyone could say just anything. There were editors, journalistic codes, institutional accountability — and yes, even fear of reputational damage. Today, entry is free and exit does not exist. Whatever you publish stays. It spreads. It’s archived. It’s pulled out of context.

In that environment, we now have a new category of public actors: influencers, content creators, commentators, “ordinary people with extraordinary reach.” They are not journalists, not politicians, not scientists. But they are listened to. Often more than all of the above combined.

And here we reach the first major crack: influence without obligation.

When someone with a large audience says, “this is a fact,” the public rarely checks. When they recommend a product, people buy it. When they relativize violence, hatred, or conspiracy theories — the consequences are not virtual.

Risks We Can No Longer Ignore

Ethics in the public sphere is no longer an abstract topic for roundtables. It is a very concrete risk.

The risk of misinformation, because speed beats accuracy. The risk of manipulation, because emotion beats reason. The risk of eroded trust, because when everyone speaks, no one knows whom to believe.

Add to that the economic dimension. Influencer marketing is a massive industry — and a field full of gray zones: undisclosed advertising, purchased followers, “honest recommendations” backed by contracts. Profitable in the short term. Toxic in the long term.

And then there are the most vulnerable — the young.

Australia, for example, has decided to pull the handbrake and ban social media for those under 16. Europe debates. The United States argues with itself. But everyone is admitting the same thing: algorithms are faster than our ability to ethically regulate them.

Because an algorithm has no conscience. It has an objective.

Ethics as an Attempt, Not a Solution

In this context, various initiatives are emerging to introduce at least a minimum of order into the chaos. One example is the Croatian Ethical Code for Influencers, signed at the end of 2021. The idea is simple and grounded in common sense: if you have public influence, you carry public responsibility. Distinguish facts from opinions. Label advertisements. Take responsibility for what you amplify.

It is important, however, to remain honest: such initiatives do not deliver instant results. A code does not change the algorithm. It does not erase poor content. It does not prevent the virality of nonsense. It is a framework, a signal, an attempt at self-regulation in an industry that until recently behaved as if it were untouchable.

Will it succeed? We don’t know. Will there be abuse? Certainly. Is it better than nothing? Absolutely.

Trust as the Only Real Currency

In this entire story, one constant remains: trust. The public no longer demands perfection, but it does demand sincerity. It does not expect everyone to be brilliant, but it does expect people not to be deliberately irresponsible.

Ethics in the public sphere today is not a matter of etiquette — it is a matter of survival. For media. For brands. For influencers. And for a society trying to preserve at least a minimum of shared reality in an ocean of content.

We may not be able to stop algorithms.

But we can decide how we use them.

And for now, that is a solid ethical minimum.