I was gobsmacked to hear a couple of days back from a close friend that people are being censored on Facebook for putting out recipes. My friend who is a Mum and is on a lot of ‘mum’ based Facebook groups, was in one ‘family cooking on a budget’ type group and discovered that Facebook is censoring recipes for pork faggots, a dish that originated in Western England in the mid 19th century.
My friend watched in amusement as people in the group detailed how their posts containing pork faggot recipes were taken down by Facebook and how the posters had been sent a warning about ‘hate speech’. Apparently this didn’t just happen to one person but to quite a few others on this particular group.
According to my friend, Facebook even made suggestions to users that they change the name of the dish from faggots to ‘pork meat balls’ in order to avoid giving offence.
The Normies from the budget cooking group, unpolitical people who just get on with life, were apparently really shocked by the censorship that they’ve suffered from Facebook over recipes. From what I’ve heard, the Normies could not believe that the censorship by Facebook that has come for so many others in the political field, has come for them and their recipes.
In a way, this heavy handed censorship of the name of a recipe that is quite innocent in the United Kingdom, may have done some good. It may well have woken up some Normies to the extent and indeed intrusiveness of Facebook and the censors who work for them. I must admit that when the digital book burners come for old British recipes, it shows everyone, not just those involved in politics or the culture wars, just how extreme and all pervasive the censors have become. This is not the first time that Facebook has censored faggot recipes, they were doing this back in 2013, but I’m surprised to hear that they are still doing this and still have not bothered to learn that the word ‘faggot’ is not always a derogatory term for a a gay man.
And there I was thinking the offence was the mention of the word pork …
You mentioned recently the way in which councils are now requesting information on race, religion, sexuality even on something as mundane as fitting a new boiler: I just had the identical experience with Northampton Borough Council when applying for a lock-up garage, but at least it was optional.
What was less than amusing, was having Northamptonshire Police refuse to process my reporting of my car being stolen unless I confirmed my racial identity. (We had an exchange of views and I have since heard nothing – not even the “crime number” they promised to e-mail – so I assume that being “White, British” only having a “traditional crime” to complain of, and telling them that they are supposed to apply the law without regard to people’s racial background, means that they just binned it…..
First they came for the cooks, then they came for the outdoor fire enthusiasts…
The mums’ recipe group should have gone on the attack. They should be acting shocked and angered, trying to get the attention of the press and TV. They should have publicly slammed Facebook for American cultural imperialism and an utter ignorance of British culture. They should demand that Facebook issue a public apology and fire those responsible. After all, grievance politics is a game for any number. For a company supposedly utterly committed to diversity, it’s a bit ironic that Facebook didn’t realise that “faggot” has diverse meanings throughout the world, some of them quite innocuous. And it’s not even as if the Facebook censors had to look far for an explanation: Dictionary.com includes both definitions of the word.
From what I understand hey did appeal this censorship and did eventually get it rescinded and made comments to FB about US-centric moderation.