Center for Health Equity, 3302 School of Public Health Building, 4200 Valley Drive, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
Department of Engineering Management & Systems Engineering, School of Engineering & Applied Sciences, George Washington University, Washington DC, USA.
Vaccine. 2020 Jan 16;38(3):512-520. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.10.066. Epub 2019 Nov 13.
In 2018, Facebook introduced Ad Archive as a platform to improve transparency in advertisements related to politics and "issues of national importance." Vaccine-related Facebook advertising is publicly available for the first time. After measles outbreaks in the US brought renewed attention to the possible role of Facebook advertising in the spread of vaccine-related misinformation, Facebook announced steps to limit vaccine-related misinformation. This study serves as a baseline of advertising before new policies went into effect.
Using the keyword 'vaccine', we searched Ad Archive on December 13, 2018 and again on February 22, 2019. We exported data for 505 advertisements. A team of annotators sorted advertisements by content: pro-vaccine, anti-vaccine, not relevant. We also conducted a thematic analysis of major advertising themes. We ran Mann-Whitney U tests to compare ad performance metrics.
309 advertisements were included in analysis with 163 (53%) pro-vaccine advertisements and 145 (47%) anti-vaccine advertisements. Despite a similar number of advertisements, the median number of ads per buyer was significantly higher for anti-vaccine ads. First time buyers are less likely to complete disclosure information and risk ad removal. Thematically, anti-vaccine advertising messages are relatively uniform and emphasize vaccine harms (55%). In contrast, pro-vaccine advertisements come from a diverse set of buyers (83 unique) with varied goals including promoting vaccination (49%), vaccine related philanthropy (15%), and vaccine related policy (14%).
A small set of anti-vaccine advertisement buyers have leveraged Facebook advertisements to reach targeted audiences. By deeming all vaccine-related content an issue of "national importance," Facebook has further the politicized vaccines. The implementation of a blanket disclosure policy also limits which ads can successfully run on Facebook. Improving transparency and limiting misinformation should not be separate goals. Public health communication efforts should consider the potential impact on Facebook users' vaccine attitudes and behaviors.
2018 年,Facebook 推出了 Ad Archive,旨在提高与政治和“国家重要问题”相关广告的透明度。疫苗相关的 Facebook 广告首次公开。在美国爆发麻疹疫情后,人们重新关注 Facebook 广告在传播疫苗相关错误信息方面的可能作用,Facebook 宣布采取措施限制疫苗相关错误信息。本研究是在新政策生效之前的广告基准。
我们于 2018 年 12 月 13 日和 2019 年 2 月 22 日在 Ad Archive 中使用关键字“疫苗”进行搜索。我们导出了 505 个广告的数据。一个注释团队根据内容对广告进行分类:支持疫苗、反对疫苗、不相关。我们还对主要广告主题进行了主题分析。我们进行了 Mann-Whitney U 检验来比较广告绩效指标。
共纳入 309 个广告进行分析,其中 163 个(53%)为支持疫苗的广告,145 个(47%)为反对疫苗的广告。尽管广告数量相似,但反疫苗广告的买家平均广告数量明显更高。首次购买者不太可能完成披露信息并面临广告被删除的风险。从主题上看,反疫苗广告信息相对统一,强调疫苗危害(55%)。相比之下,支持疫苗的广告来自不同的买家(83 个不同的买家),目标各不相同,包括推广疫苗接种(49%)、疫苗相关慈善事业(15%)和疫苗相关政策(14%)。
一小部分反疫苗广告买家利用 Facebook 广告向目标受众投放广告。通过将所有与疫苗相关的内容都视为“国家重要问题”,Facebook 进一步使疫苗政治化。全面披露政策的实施也限制了哪些广告可以在 Facebook 上成功投放。提高透明度和限制错误信息不应该是分开的目标。公共卫生传播工作应考虑其对 Facebook 用户疫苗态度和行为的潜在影响。