Resurgence of Old-fashioned Women’s Health Language Amid Content Suppression on Social Media
In recent months, social media has seen a revival of antiquated terms related to women’s health, notably in discussions surrounding menstruation. Phrases like “time of the month” or “Aunt Flo” are re-emerging, often attributed to concerns over how algorithmic biases affect content visibility.
Allegations of Content Suppression
Women’s health companies have increasingly accused various social media platforms of suppressing their content. They argue that algorithm changes and advertising policies disproportionately discriminate against topics concerning women’s health. Amid these concerns, the issue of “shadow banning” has gained significant traction. This practice involves limiting the visibility of content without informing creators, effectively silencing their voices.
Gender Disparities on LinkedIn
A new trend on LinkedIn has emerged, with numerous women altering their gender settings to assess how their posts perform compared to those of male users. Notable figures in business, including Cindy Gallop, Jane Evans, and Jo Dalton, have remarked on the stark differences in engagement that arose from this change.
The Broader Impact of Content Suppression
The movement on LinkedIn underscores a persistent issue: the suppression of women’s health content across a myriad of media platforms, including Meta, TikTok, and Google. A report released by the CensHERship campaign revealed that a staggering 95% of women’s health creators surveyed reported experiencing censorship in the past year.
Case Studies Highlighting Censorship Risks
Deirdre O’Neill, CEO of Hertility Health, stated that her company has experienced challenges attributed to shadow banning. She noted, “There’s clear and direct discrimination in terms of what is permitted” online, with more than 40% of Hertility’s campaigns encountering blocks due to “sensitive content.”
Bodyform, a well-known menstrual health brand, also reported similar censorship issues. Kate Prince, the public affairs manager at Essity, noted that they are frequently faced with blocks on their advertisements, which impacts their outreach efforts. In an instance, Bodyform’s marketing of a new product, designed specifically for heavy flows, was hampered by Google’s decision to ban its advertising, despite having been planned to maximize visibility.
Challenges for Smaller Enterprises
This issue is particularly detrimental to smaller organizations like HANX, a sexual wellness brand. Co-founder Farah Kabir shared that up to 80% of their advertisements on Meta are initially rejected, which not only drains resources but risks the survival of the business. She elaborated, “Digital penalisation isn’t just restricting our ability to reach new customers; it’s also threatening the existence of our business.”
Legislative Attention and Future Actions
The rising frustrations surrounding these issues have garnered political attention, with Labour MP Emily Darlington advocating for legislative discussions on the matter. She highlighted the paradox in social media policies, noting, “These are the same companies that are saying they can’t suppress… rape threats… yet words like endometriosis and fibroids are too sexual or too political.”
Engagement with Policy Makers
Recently, a roundtable discussion was held in Parliament featuring representatives from women’s health brands, academics, content creators, and TikTok. These organizations, including Hertility and the CensHERship campaign, have formally lodged complaints with the European Commission, calling attention to what they describe as systemic violations of the Digital Services Act.
The Call for Improved Moderation
Dr. Hannah Ditchfield, an academic from Sheffield University, emphasized the necessity of equitable treatment for women’s health content in digital spaces, stating, “There’s a long history of inequality and stigma when it comes to women’s health offline.”
Responses from Major Social Media Platforms
In response to the ongoing debates, representatives from Meta, TikTok, and Google have defended their content policies. Meta reiterated its guidelines against sharing sensitive information, whereas TikTok represented itself as proactive in engaging with the women’s health community. Google also maintained that ads for menstrual products face no restrictions, encouraging advertisers to appeal against any decisions they deem unfair.
Conclusion
The ongoing discussion around women’s health content on social media reflects a critical intersection of gender, public health, and technology. As women’s health brands continue to advocate for equitable content visibility, the dialogue highlights the pressing need for systemic changes within social media infrastructures.
