Twitter and Google blocked ads from a medical journal about health and racism

Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

The special issue on health and racism was published by Health Affairs at the beginning of February. The journal wanted to reach new readers through targeted advertisements on social media.

The director of digital strategy at Health Affairs says that it was frustrating when the ads were blocked. Sweet believes that the journal's account was suspended because of ads for the special issue. Last week, Sweet wrote a post about her frustration and said she thought the use of the word "racism" was the reason for the rejections.

The ad rejections didn't have to do with the language around racism, but were blocked due to policies around advocacy and COVID-19. The confusion shows how health research sometimes doesn't fit into categories used by tech companies to flag potentially problematic content, making it difficult for them to push out credible information.

People working in public health and public policy often read Health Affairs. There are articles on sexual and reproductive health of Black women in the South, as well as racial bias in electronic health records, police encounters, and inequity in the use of home health agencies. It hoped to draw in a new audience with the ads.

Christa Muldoon, communications and public affairs manager of the journal, said that the journal's ads were blocked because of the video. The company has a policy that blocks ads that potentially profit from or exploit a sensitive event.

According to a statement from the company, the ads were blocked under the policy that requires advertisers to be certified before publishing ads that call for people to take action.

Sweet wouldn't have assumed the journal's content would fall under cause-based policy. She says that they are just putting the information out there.

The Health Affairs ad was taken down under the "inappropriate content" policy. The ad described how the special issue focused on racism and health and was similar to the ones flagged under the cause-based policy. According to Laura Pacas, any ad would have been denied under the same cause-based policy.

Sweet thinks that the tech companies' policies around ads are important, but that they are applied to small groups in an unfair way. She wasn't able to easily contact someone at a large media agency to address the issue the same way she would at a small agency. She was unable to get information about why the ads were blocked. Sweet doesn't think Health Affairs falls under the type of advocacy category that is set up to target.

When a machine sees health policy, they might assume politics. The brand is in a nowhere land.

Health Affairs plans to resubmit its ads after getting its caused-based certification. She submitted appeals and the account is back on. She wants her team to focus on the research instead of the conflict with the tech companies.

She says that they are not able to share it with the world as much as they would like.