LifeSiteNews Alleges Apple News Banned Their Channel For Showing ‘Intolerance’

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And yet there are other conservative sources on the platform…🤔

Really, LifeSite needs to learn that actions have consequences, and they really need to start with some introspection rather than complaining every time their often abrasive, uncharitable, and disrespectful writing gets them in trouble.
 
Didn’t read the link, don’t know the background to this story, but based on my experience with LifeSite, I’ll likely side with Apple’s decision anyway. They haven’t made themselves into much more than a radical propaganda machine as of late.
 
Last edited:
I don’t disagree, but
  1. it is too broad a brush to cite abrasive, uncharitable and disrespectful writing without referencing the specific examples Apple took umbrage with. That said, that is your characterization, not Apple’s.
  2. Apple never said your description was why they were banned. They nebulously said they promoted “intolerance” towards a “specific group” without saying what the intolerance was, or who the group was.
The issue should be directed at how Apple TV chooses to handle these things more so than any one channel, IMO, since they are the ones being vague and appearing arbitrary and capricious. They are legally within their rights of course, and may well have a good point from a PR perspective, but how can we know since they don’t say?
 
Last edited:
LifeSiteNews has other problems they need to deal with.
 
Cor_ad_Cor said:
Didn’t read the link, don’t know the background to this story, but based on my experience with LifeSite, I’ll likely side with Apple’s decision anyway. They haven’t made themselves into much more than a radical propaganda machine as of late.
Click to expand...
However strongly you dislike LifeSite and however correct you feel your position to be, isn’t it the height of folly to draw a conclusion without knowing - or caring to know - any of the actual facts?
 
Dr_Meinheimer said:
Apple never said your description was why they were banned.
Click to expand...
I was more getting down to the behavior that would probably lead companies like Apple and Twitter to take accusations of intolerance seriously. It is going to (reasonably) be taken as hateful and intolerant by others, especially when they do it so frequently. I know I’ve called them out on it on this site, and they are definitely on the radar of some,* and it shouldn’t be surprising that they’ll run into issue less for their views and more in how they present them.

* Do note that I think the Advocate article occasionally delves into matters of religious conviction, but it also displays some of how LifeSite would be viewed by non-Catholics.
Dr_Meinheimer said:
it is too broad a brush to cite abrasive, uncharitable and disrespectful writing without referencing the specific examples Apple took umbrage with.
Click to expand...
Maybe I missed it, but I don’t think Apple gave specific examples.

With that said, it was more a reference to not just this case but the general problem LifeSite has run into like 4 - 5 times now that I know of (the article references them). And every time I’m aware of they claim discrimination, all the while other conservative sites don’t face the same discipline. You’d think that, sooner or later, they’d take some time to analyze their conduct and realize that their conduct is the problem, not others’ bigotry.
Dr_Meinheimer said:
They nebulously said they promoted “intolerance” towards a “specific group” without saying what the intolerance was, or who the group was.
Click to expand...
My guess is that it was an automated message with some rule ticked (which is another can of worms). But I think that, even without the aforementioned Advocate article, anyone could make a pretty safe bet that it has to do with LGBT issues.
Dr_Meinheimer said:
The issue should be directed at how Apple TV chooses to handle these things more so than any one channel, IMO, since they are the ones being vague and appearing arbitrary and capricious.
Click to expand...
Well, since you opened the can of worms…Yes, I agree. I’m not as familiar with how Apple handles these things (really, just less potential on their part), but this is at least a serious problem on YouTube, made all the worse by how broken YouTube’s copyright and flagging systems are. I get that tech companies want to automate these things, and even non-tech companies often automate emails. At some point, though, people need to realize that when dealing with humans, automated systems are unsatisfactory. That’s why we generally have a “speak to a representative” fallback, even if some companies (looking at you Best Buy!)* make it difficult to reach that.

* Maybe Best Buy has gotten better recently, but the last time I needed to talk to support, it was a nightmare to navigate their support systems.
 
I’m not sure why folks are so negative about LifeSite News. They are one of the sources brave and bold enough to call out many of the novelties, errors, and confusing actions going on in the Church. Somebody needs to report it.
 
LSN alleges many things. One or two of which may have a basis in reality. I detect a combo of black helicopter/bunker mentality over there…
 
Tolle_Lege said:
I’m not sure why folks are so negative about LifeSite News. They are one of the sources brave and bold enough to call out many of the novelties, errors, and confusing actions going on in the Church. Somebody needs to report it.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I’ve come across some really virulent attitudes against LifeSite on this forum, which was initially startling as they do very good work.

These usually consist of objections to style or the type of news they report on. I’ve yet to see any well-supported, coherent reasoning as to why they’re a negative element.
 
What they should say is “Banned for displeasing the trendy and avante guarde.”
 
Gosh, I guess LifeSite isn’t popular here. I thought they were a perfectly valid source of information.
 
LifeSiteNews pushes headlines questioning the Pope.

www.lifesitenews.com

Pope Francis Archives - LifeSite

www.lifesitenews.com www.lifesitenews.com

Just reading the headlines.
I have 100% confidence in the hierarchy and the Pope,especially, which means any teaching I believe is the work of the Holy Spirit. Not saying you can’t criticize. It has a bias like all news agencies. Maybe people are ticked by its attitude towards the Pope. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
They don’t do anything good. I don’t need any more news on the latest LGBTQ trend or maybe it’s because poster’s here don’t choose good articles from their site.
 
Last edited:
It was in the age of the old format. (My emoji came out as a word somehow, sorry about that)

I think this format is good in some aspects, but I do miss the rule that News threads needed an article from a legitimate news source.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure why we can’t have both the new format and a rule requiring legitimate news sources. At the very least, I’m pretty sure we already do require moderator approval on some sources, as I remember one of my earlier posts required such review when I linked to a CARM article.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top