Meta’s Policy Shift: Revolution or Risk for Women’s Health?

Happy Thursday!

Bright and early tomorrow morning, I am flying to San Francisco to the JP Morgan Conference and there are many women’s health events. (Finally!) Stay tuned in upcoming newsletters for all that was discussed.

In the meantime, in case you have not heard, Meta has changed its policy on content moderation. What does this mean for women’s health? Read on and please “reply” to share your thoughts.

Is Meta’s Censorship Policy Shift a Step Toward Progress for Women’s Health?

The digital landscape is buzzing with Meta’s announcement of a new direction in content moderation. The tech giant’s decision to end its third-party fact-checking program and introduce a Community Notes model has sparked conversations about the implications for free expression. How might this impact the dissemination of women’s health information? This blog explores the potential impact of these changes, highlights historical censorship challenges faced by women’s health brands, and questions whether this shift truly signals progress or opens a Pandora’s box of new concerns.

The History of Meta’s Censorship of Women’s Health Ads

For years, women’s health companies have faced systemic barriers to advertising on Meta’s platforms. According to a report by the Center for Intimacy Justice, 100% of surveyed women-led health companies attempting to advertise on Meta platforms experienced ad rejections. Products addressing menopause, pelvic pain, and sexual wellness were often categorized as “Adult Products,” while ads for erectile dysfunction and male-focused health products were approved without issue.

This double standard was not just a technical oversight but a glaring example of gender bias. Startups like Dame, a female-founded sexual wellness brand, were blocked from advertising despite using tasteful and health-focused messaging despite multiple instances of erectile dysfunction advertising containing phallic imagery, advertising boosting female breasts promoting breast implants, or pieces inviting transit users to visit the Museum of Sex. Dame’s eventual lawsuit against the MTA and their settlement to launch city-wide ads underscore the persistent need for advocacy and change.

Meta’s New Policies: What’s Changing?

Meta’s decision to phase out third-party fact-checking and replace it with a Community Notes system reflects a broader commitment to free expression. This approach, modeled after X’s (formerly Twitter) community moderation, relies on diverse contributors to provide additional context to flagged posts. Meta also announced plans to reduce over-enforcement of content policies, which previously led to the censorship of many health-related posts.

Notably, the company is lifting restrictions on political and social topics, including gender identity and reproductive health, while focusing its enforcement on illegal and high-severity violations like fraud and terrorism.

Potential Opportunities for Women’s Health Information Access

The relaxation of censorship policies could pave the way for women’s health brands to share much-needed information. For instance:

• Improved Access to Sexual Wellness Education: Ads for sexual health products like vibrators, which are proven to address pain and improve wellbeing, could now reach their intended audiences.

• Better Representation of Menopause and Reproductive Health: Previously shadowbanned topics like menstrual education and menopause management might gain visibility.

• Community-Led Content Moderation: The inclusion of diverse perspectives in the Community Notes system could reduce algorithmic biases that disproportionately impacted women’s health content.

The Risks: Are We Opening Pandora’s Box?

While these changes appear promising, they also introduce new challenges, particularly for communities like Fempower Health’s audience, who crave trustworthy information but struggle with misinformation.

• Risk of Misinformation: The lack of third-party fact-checking could amplify the spread of poorly researched health claims and, ultimately, inaccurate health advice. With women’s health already limited by lack of funding for research and systemic bias, this is especially concerning.

• Bias in Community Notes: Will the contributors to the Community Notes system truly represent diverse perspectives, or will dominant narratives prevail? Evidence already shows that on social media, sensationalized or exaggerated content gets the most views.

• Impact on Health Education: Relaxing censorship might mean more visibility for taboo topics like sexual health, but it also risks conflating credible resources with pseudoscience.

The Opportunities: A New Era for Women’s Health Advocacy

• Elevating Underserved Topics: Menopause, sexual wellness, and reproductive health may gain even further mainstream visibility.

• Community Engagement: Crowd-sourced moderation could amplify the voices of women advocating for health equity.

• Driving Credible Narratives: Women’s health brands have an opportunity to fill the vacuum with authoritative, research-backed information. (Let’s hope they cite sources and that leads to a snowball effect of citing!)

What the Data Tells Us

Historical data from the Center for Intimacy Justice highlights the dire need for equitable advertising policies. The findings revealed that:

• 42 out of 44 surveyed companies faced ad rejections.

• 50% had their entire ad accounts suspended.

• Ads addressing health issues like endometriosis or pelvic floor therapy were blocked, while suggestive ads for erectile dysfunction were approved.

These disparities have stifled innovation and limited access to vital health resources. Can Meta’s new policies truly correct this imbalance, or will systemic biases continue to plague women’s health advertising?

If you’d like to listen to Fempower Health’s interview with Jackie Rotman of the Center for Intimacy Justice, click here.

Driving the Conversation Forward

As Meta embarks on this new chapter, it’s critical for women’s health advocates, businesses, and communities to remain vigilant. We must:

1. Demand Transparency: Meta must disclose how Community Notes are curated and ensure diverse representation.

2. Amplify Reliable Voices: Women’s health experts and brands should use this opportunity to flood the digital space with credible, research-backed content.

3. Monitor the Impact: Track how these policy changes affect the visibility and accessibility of women’s health information over time.

Closing Thoughts

Meta’s new approach to content moderation could be a turning point for women’s health. By allowing more speech and reducing over-enforcement, the door may open for much-needed health information to reach underserved audiences. However, without careful implementation and oversight, this shift risks creating new challenges that could harm the very communities it aims to support.

The Fempower Health community is uniquely positioned to drive this conversation. We encourage you to share your thoughts, experiences, and questions in the comments. Together, let’s ensure that this moment becomes a step toward equity, education, and empowerment for women’s health.

Warmly,
Georgie