Finding Harmony: Striking a Balance or Creating Distance?

Meta’s recent decision to transition from fact-checkers to a community notes model similar to X sheds light on the evolving approaches to free speech and content moderation on digital platforms. This shift underscores a broader disconnect within digital channels. The varying moderation strategies, coupled with increasing concerns about data privacy, present significant challenges for both marketers and consumers.

At the core of this issue lies a critical dilemma: How do we strike a balance between the principles of free speech and the necessity for trust and accountability? How can consumer demands for data privacy coexist with the requirements of effective digital marketing? These unresolved questions highlight a division that could reshape the landscape of digital marketing and online trust.

Background: A timeline

To grasp the current scenario, it’s essential to examine the journey that led us here. Below is a timeline detailing key milestones in social media, email marketing, and regulatory/legal/restrictive events since the 1990s.

CompuServe, Prodigy, Meta, and Section 230

In the early 1990s, online platforms like CompuServe and Prodigy encountered significant legal challenges regarding user-generated content. CompuServe was acquitted of libel in 1991 under the premise that it functioned as a neutral distributor of content, much like a soapbox in a public square. In contrast, Prodigy was held accountable in 1996 because it actively moderated content, positioning itself more as a publisher.

To address these conflicting rulings and safeguard internet innovation, the U.S. government enacted the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which included Section 230. This provision shields platforms from liability for user-generated content, enabling platforms like Facebook (established in 2004) to flourish without the fear of being treated as publishers.

Fast forward to 2016, when Facebook faced public scrutiny for its involvement in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. At that time, CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged the platform’s responsibility and introduced fact-checking to combat misinformation.

However, in 2025, Meta’s new policy shifts the responsibility for content moderation back to users, citing Section 230 protections.

Email marketing, blocklists, and self-regulation

Email marketing, one of the earliest digital channels, took a different trajectory. By the late 1990s, spam posed a threat to inundating inboxes, leading to the creation of blocklists like Spamhaus in 1998. This self-regulatory measure effectively preserved email as a viable marketing channel.

The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 established basic standards for commercial email, such as requiring unsubscribe options. However, it fell short of the proactive opt-in requirements mandated by the EU’s 2002 e-privacy directive and U.S. blocklist providers. Email marketers largely embraced opt-in standards to foster trust and safeguard the channel’s integrity, with the industry still relying on blocklists in 2025.

GDPR, CCPA, Apple MPP, and consumer privacy

The heightened consumer awareness regarding data privacy led to pivotal regulations like the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2018 and California’s Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in 2020. These laws granted consumers greater control over their personal data, including the right to know what data is collected, how it is used, have it deleted, and opt-out of its sale.

While GDPR mandates explicit consent before data collection, CCPA offers fewer restrictions but emphasizes transparency. These regulations presented challenges for marketers reliant on personalized targeting, but the industry is adapting. Social platforms, however, continue to rely on implicit consent and broad data policies, creating inconsistencies in the user experience.

In 2021, Apple introduced mail privacy protection (MPP), rendering email open rate data unreliable.

Dig deeper: U.S. state data privacy laws: What you need to know

Considerations

Consumer concerns and trade-offs

As consumers increasingly demand control over their data, they are often unaware of the trade-off: less data means less personalized and less relevant marketing. This paradox places marketers in a challenging position, navigating between privacy and effective outreach.

The value of moderation: Lessons from email marketing and other social media platforms

Without blocklists like Spamhaus, email would have descended into a swamp of spam and scams, rendering the channel unusable. Social media platforms encounter a similar predicament. While imperfect, fact-checking plays a vital role in upholding trust and usability, especially in an era where misinformation undermines public confidence in institutions.

Similarly, platforms like TikTok and Pinterest seem to navigate moderation controversies adeptly. Are they less politically charged, or have they developed more effective fact-checking strategies? Their approaches offer potential insights for Meta and others.

Technology as a solution, not an obstacle

Meta’s concerns about false positives in fact-checking echo challenges email marketers encountered in the past. Advancements in AI and machine learning have significantly enhanced email spam filtering, reducing errors and preserving trust. Social platforms could leverage similar technologies to improve content moderation instead of shunning the responsibility.

Dig deeper: Marketers, it’s time to walk the walk on responsible media

The bigger picture: What’s at stake?

Envision a social media platform inundated with misinformation due to inadequate moderation, coupled with irrelevant marketing messages stemming from limited data due to stringent privacy policies. Is this the type of environment where you’d choose to spend your online time?

Misinformation and privacy concerns prompt critical inquiries about the future of social media platforms. Will they lose user trust, akin to X post its content moderation rollback? Will platforms that only moderate the most egregious misinformation become echo chambers of unverified content? Will the lack of relevance adversely impact the quality and revenue of digital marketing on these platforms?

Fixing the disconnect

Here are actionable steps that can help reconcile these competing priorities and ensure a more cohesive digital ecosystem:

• Unified standards across channels: Establish baseline privacy and content moderation standards across digital marketing channels.
• Proactive consumer education: Educate users on how data and content are managed across platforms and the pros and cons of stringent data privacy requirements. Provide consumers with information and nuanced options on data privacy.
• Use AI for moderation: Invest in technology to enhance accuracy and reduce errors in content moderation.
• Encourage global regulatory alignment: Proactively align with stricter privacy laws like GDPR to future-proof operations. Despite states passing laws on these issues, the U.S. Congress has not achieved this alignment.

To safeguard the future of social digital spaces, we must address the challenges of free speech and data privacy. This necessitates collaboration and innovation within the industry to build trust with users and sustain a positive online experience across all channels.

Dig deeper: How to balance ROAS, brand safety, and suitability in social media advertising