Almost 200 tech founders, health professionals, and campaigners have signed an open letter addressed to Big Tech and policymakers calling for an end to the ‘censorship’ of women’s health issues on social media.

Published in collaboration between campaign groups CensHERship and The Case For Her, the letter warns that across social media, content about women’s health is being taken down, restricted, and labelled as inappropriate.

Even medically accurate, non-sexual posts are reportedly being flagged as ‘adult content’, with campaigners saying that as a result, 95% of women’s health creators face censorship under inconsistent, opaque moderation practices.

Already signed by the leaders of firms, including Love Honey, Clue, Essity (Bodyform), Evofem Biosciences, WUKA, Daye, HANX, and Béa Fertility, the letter cautions that the routine digital censorship of women’s health content online is resulting in economic, social and health-related consequences.  

“This is not just an inconvenience. This is holding back innovation in women’s health, blocking public access to essential health information, and – we fear – it is costing lives,” says the letter.

“We will not avoid topics like libido, discharge, prolapse and periods – because we need to talk about real bodies, real experiences, and real health concerns.

“We will not stop our work to advance healthcare for more than half of the world’s population.”

Alongside the open letter, CensHERship published its Censorship Revealed whitepaper, outlining the impact of digital suppression for women’s health content across very large online platforms, from social media to financial services.

According to the report, social media platforms’ adult content and nudity policies see legitimate content being shadowbanned, with hashtags, keywords and women’s health products being suppressed by complex and inscrutable algorithms.

Launching a survey into the impact of these restrictions, CensHERship found that more than half (53%) of creators, health brands and health professionals now self-censor their content, while 38% have experienced at least ten incidents of digital suppression in the last twelve months.

Meta’s platforms were found to be the most inclined to censor content, with 90% of those polled experiencing suppression of health content on Instagram and 52% on Facebook, although close to a third (32%) said they had come across the problem on TikTok, 15% on YouTube and 11% on LinkedIn.

Examples of censorship include Meta blocking content from a post-mastectomy nipple tattooist, LinkedIn and Google Ads restricting posts about menopause and postpartum issues by a vaginal health brand, and Amazon forcing Béa Fertility to replace the word vagina with ‘birth canal’ on an at-home fertility kit.   

It isn’t only health issues at stake, either, as the study found that social media censorship is blocking growth for women’s health businesses, with one founder saying her firm had taken a £500,000 hit because of these issues in the past year. 

However, the campaigners said that fixing these problems will take more than social media platforms updating their moderation policies and content systems.

Recommended

• Women’s Health App Flo Becomes Latest UK Tech Unicorn
• “World-leading” AI Trial to Screen 700K UK Women for Breast Cancer
• AI Solutions are Driving the Growth of the FemTech Sector

First, they are calling for a culture shift that ends the treatment of women’s health content as inherently sexual or inappropriate, with platforms taking feedback and integrating this into transparent, accessible processes.

To make this happen, they are calling for policymakers to bring platforms on board to ensure new digital regulations address gender bias in public health content online, while investors are being encouraged to challenge the same bias in their decisions to seek out women-led health firms.  

“It’s time to level the playing field for women’s health content,” said Clio Wood and Anna O’Sullivan, co-founders of CensHERship. 

“This isn’t about isolated errors. It’s about an entire digital ecosystem that treats women’s health as inappropriate. This censorship isn’t just frustrating – it’s economically damaging and, in some cases, can cost lives.”