This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/facebook-blocks-promotion-of-feminist-classic-damned-whores-and-gods-police-because-of-profane-title-of-book-10472426.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Facebook blocks promotion of feminist classic 'Damned Whores and God's Police' because of 'profane' book title Facebook blocks promotion of feminist classic 'Damned Whores and God's Police' because of 'profane' book title
(35 minutes later)
Facebook has reportedly refused to publicise a post for a feminist author’s conference discussing her influential book because of its “profane” title.Facebook has reportedly refused to publicise a post for a feminist author’s conference discussing her influential book because of its “profane” title.
Anne Summers wrote on her personal Facebook account the social media behemoth had “denied permission” to boost a post promoting a conference discussing her 1975 book Damned Whores and God’s Police.Anne Summers wrote on her personal Facebook account the social media behemoth had “denied permission” to boost a post promoting a conference discussing her 1975 book Damned Whores and God’s Police.
The book explored the persistence of Australian settlers’ binary stereotypes that had delineated women into convicted “whores” or carefully guarded “respectable” females. The book explored the persistence of Australian settlers’ stereotypes that separated women into convicted “whores” or carefully guarded “respectable” females.
The controversy centres about a Facebook tool which users can pay to use to “boost” posts, enabling them to reach more peoples’ feeds - subject to higher standards than normal posts. The controversy centres around a Facebook tool which users can pay for to “boost” posts, enabling them to reach more peoples’ feeds - subject to higher standards than normal posts.
Ms Summers claims she attempted to boost the original post on Monday, but Facebook reportedly responded by saying: “We don’t allow ads that use profanity. Such language can offend viewers and doesn’t reflect the product being advertised.”Ms Summers claims she attempted to boost the original post on Monday, but Facebook reportedly responded by saying: “We don’t allow ads that use profanity. Such language can offend viewers and doesn’t reflect the product being advertised.”
Dear FB friends.How do you solve a problem like this:Many years ago I wrote a book and gave it a provocative title....Dear FB friends.How do you solve a problem like this:Many years ago I wrote a book and gave it a provocative title....
The author and campaigner told The Guardian she was “flabbergasted” by the reaction.The author and campaigner told The Guardian she was “flabbergasted” by the reaction.
She suggested that the offending “profanity” may have been in the inclusion of a quote by the former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard on her public reception. She suggested that the offending “profanity” may have been the inclusion of a quote by former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard on her public reception.
“As a woman wielding power, with all the complexities of modern politics, I was never going to be portrayed as a good woman,” Ms Gillard wrote in her memoir, My Story. “So I must be the bad woman, a scheming shrew, a heartless harridan or a lying bitch.” “As a woman wielding power, with all the complexities of modern politics, I was never going to be portrayed as a good woman,” Ms Gillard wrote in her memoir, My Story.
“So I must be the bad woman, a scheming shrew, a heartless harridan or a lying bitch.”
On Wednesday morning, Ms Summers’ original post had received more than 8,000 shares and 4,000 likes – far in excess of what she expected had she paid for the post to be ‘boosted’.On Wednesday morning, Ms Summers’ original post had received more than 8,000 shares and 4,000 likes – far in excess of what she expected had she paid for the post to be ‘boosted’.
Ahem: 8109 shares (and 669,474 people reached). Cost: $0.00 https://t.co/2Rha24skVBAhem: 8109 shares (and 669,474 people reached). Cost: $0.00 https://t.co/2Rha24skVB
Facebook has been contacted for comment.Facebook has been contacted for comment.