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

[Finn]

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.

You may not, others may - that’s basic personal preference. But if you believe that’s the extent of their reporting focus, then it doesn’t seem as if you’ve been to the site or read many of their articles.

They do excellent work on a variety of issues - pro-life is one that springs to mind, as is advocating for the elderly and vulnerable.

There seems to be a lot of prejudice against them on this forum, which is a real shame as they often report on issues which get either very biased coverage or no coverage at all from secular media outlets.

It’s an even bigger shame that most of the comments are basic smears that lack substance, often coming from posters who don’t seem to have been to the site or know much about the variety of content.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

There seems to be a lot of prejudice against them on this forum, which is a real shame as they often report on issues which get either very biased coverage or no coverage at all from secular media outlets.

It’s an even bigger shame that most of the comments are basic smears that lack substance, often coming from posters who don’t seem to have been to the site or know much about the variety of content.

I criticize what I see and it’s mostly just annoying LGBT news. Ironically enough nobody posts any of their pro-life articles.

 

[Finn]

I criticize what I see and it’s mostly just annoying LGBT news. Ironically enough nobody posts any of their pro-life articles.

You’re doing more than that with the blanket claim that ‘they don’t do anything good’.

Why do the LGBT focused articles annoy you to the extent that you’re prepared to opine on the merits of the site without visiting it or reading their articles on other subjects?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Why do the LGBT focused articles annoy you to the extent that you’re prepared to opine on the merits of the site without visiting it or reading their articles on other subjects?

I’ll just limit the scope of my statement to those types of articles then.

 

[Anicette]

It is censor.

It is never good for democracy.

It is not good for us Christians, that this site is censored by a gafa giant. Contrary to what some believe it is not good that traditionalist views on sexuality, mariage and live are forbidden to exist in public espace. unless if you believe in completely opposite values and believe that thé catholics views should je banned.

Time to banned this Giants as much as de can!

 

[ZMystiCat]

It is censor.

If this is censorship, then censorship has lost all meaning as a valid criticism. With that said, I’d hardly call this “censorship” any more than the various ways to get posts removed here is. Those who wish to participate on a platform must abide by its rules. I’m not going to claim why they do so, but LifeSite seems to think they’re above such rules.

It is never good for democracy.

And some would say that the way LifeSite treats the LGBT community is not good for democracy.

It is not good for us Christians, that this site is censored by a gafa giant.

As far as I’m aware, Apple is not against Catholic views in particular. LifeSite, however, represents a particularly toxic expression of those views, often going beyond expressions of Catholic morality altogether. While LifeSite may use its Catholic identity to hide beyond a “religious discrimination” complaint, I seriously doubt it was their religion that got them kicked off the platform. And we, as Catholics, shouldn’t let them hide beyond that any more than Jesus let the Ephesians get away with letting truth excuse their losing their “first love” (Rev. 2:1-7).

 

[Finn]

LifeSite seems to think they’re above such rules.

This is incorrect - they believe they have adhered to platform rules and are unaware how their content or indeed what content has resulted in channel deletion. Unfortunately your claim is another example of unsubstantiated prejudice against this outlet.

some would say that the way LifeSite treats the LGBT community is not good for democracy

It’s quite hard to unpack your meaning here. Who says this and how does LifeSite’s reporting negatively influence democracy?

LifeSite, however, represents a particularly toxic expression of those views, often going beyond expressions of Catholic morality altogether.

This is a pretty strong and broad assertion. It’s almost as if we’re reading completely different websites. Do you have any examples of these particularly toxic expressions from LifeSite?

 

[Tolle_Lege]

It’s quite hard to unpack your meaning here. Who says this and how does LifeSite’s reporting negatively influence democracy?

If anything, the LGBT community negatively influences democracy. Not only did they gain acceptance, but they want to force participation in their lifestyle by baiting Christian bakeries, instantly attacking any celebrity or politician who expresses a traditional view of marriage or gender, pushing for laws punishing people for not using certain pronouns, etc.

 

[ZMystiCat]

This is incorrect - they believe they have adhered to platform rules and are unaware how their content or indeed what content has resulted in channel deletion.

You truncated the part where I said I wouldn’t assign motivation, and I said “seems to think”. As I noted earlier, it can reasonably attributed to a total lack of introspection. On the other hand, they’ve come under fire for the same thing enough that it is hard to tell if they’re really that unaware. Whatever the case, their behavior, and the consistent arguments used to defend them, always paint it as a matter of religious discrimination, as if how they present their beliefs isn’t the core problem.

Who says this and how does LifeSite’s reporting negatively influence democracy?

I don’t think LifeSite has been targeted specifically in the discourse, but there is debate over the limits of speech and expression in democracies and whether the limiting or allowing of certain speech helps or harms those same democracies.

Do you have any examples of these particularly toxic expressions from LifeSite?

I obviously can’t go through all of the articles I’ve read of theirs because of this site alone, but even recent memory hasn’t been kind.

I noted that an article they wrote in June seems to imply that you can’t tell gay people God made and loved them. In the article that got them on trouble on Twitter, they called the LGBT community an “engine for disease”. They don’t even try to report on transgender issues in ways that won’t clearly be taken as discriminatory, and may refer to the same as “insane” and a “cult”, all the while also seeming to confuse drag and transgenderism (and don’t even get me started on the movie star rant he did!). They frequently painted the recent sex abuse crisis as a “homosexual problem”, which not only plays on stereotypes of gay men as predators and pedophiles but also treats such abuse, which may also be found in a heterosexual context, as unique “homosexual”. NCR has called out their unrelenting criticism as a problem itself (and I’m sure I’ve referenced the problem elsewhere on the forums). And, oh yeah, they seem to support conversion therapy.

continued…

 

[ZMystiCat]

But further telling is that in all of the articles referenced (and I think every article I’ve ever read from them), they never show an ounce of sympathy for what the LGBT community goes through. If anything, any “sympathy” seems to be leading up to a punchline, like in the “disease engine” comment, and even in the same article, they both acknowledge a potential problem but then brush it aside as “whining”. Their lack of charity (whether relative or absolute), only anger and complaining, is itself possibly speaking louder than their choice of words or personal views. This isn’t a site seeking to explore the Catholic/LGBT relationship. It is a site that constantly points at the community and say, “Look at these monsters!”

And this isn’t to say everything they say is bad or that everything they draw attention to isn’t a problem. But whatever moral truths and shining lights in darkness that may be scattered about their articles, it is constantly punctuated by an attitude that LGBT people aren’t deserving of even the slightest ounce of charity, if anything only derision or mockery.

And speaking as someone who has had to personally deal with gender identity issues, that is what makes the site abhorrent. That is what contributes to a fear that pushes people away because they’re too scared to come out and admit that they’re not sure of God’s design for their struggles. That is what makes everyone miss the beauty of God’s design and see it as ugly, hateful, toxic waste. Thankfully, God helped me see the beauty after much searching (even if I had no idea it was what I was looking for), but that was completely despite how Christians behaved and presenting God’s design, and LifeSite is a constant reminder of that “completely despite”. Others aren’t as lucky, albeit my obsessive personality bites me in other ways. :crazy_face:

(And sorry for the rant. I got a bit carried away there.)

 

[Finn]

You truncated the part where I said I wouldn’t assign motivation

You claimed that LifeSite ‘seems to think they’re above the rules.’ In the article that originated this thread, there’s no suggestion of this and nor have you produced any. They don’t know what content triggered the deletion and they so far haven’t been told. If you’re claiming they deliberately flout platform rules, you need to support that claim, otherwise it’s merely empty speculation and more of the usual LifeSite = BAD.

I don’t think LifeSite has been targeted specifically in the discourse, but there is debate over the limits of speech and expression in democracies and whether the limiting or allowing of certain speech helps or harms those same democracies.

So no-one’s actually said this but because there’s a debate going on about free speech, LifeSite might be bad for democracy? With respect, this is unsound reasoning.

I obviously can’t go through all of the articles I’ve read of theirs because of this site alone, but even recent memory hasn’t been kind.

I don’t see anything in the first article you linked suggesting God doesn’t love gay people. Most of it is a completely unexceptional affirmation of basic Catholic teaching. The second link seems to be delivering health statistics in an editorial style you don’t like - fair enough. I’m uncertain what’s discriminatory in the third linked piece. As to the fourth, I would use stronger terminology than that to describe transgender ideology, as would a cardinal of the Church. It doesn’t appear that the Vatican is delighted with it, either.

It seems your primary issues with the site are that they a) produce articles which you personally disagree with and b) aren’t sufficiently sympathetic in their attitude toward the LGBT community. I wonder what you think sympathy toward that community would look like? Would it be expressing & promoting the truths of the Church, as a bulwark against the relentless & quite different messaging of modern secular society and media? Or would it be something else?

You note the site doesn’t seek to ‘explore the Catholic/LGBT relationship’ & I agree with you - it doesn’t, nor is it required to. It supports & expresses orthodox Catholic beliefs by reporting on a wide range of issues - most of which have nothing to do with LGBT topics.

I’m very sorry you’ve had to deal with identity issues but I do not agree that this makes the site abhorrent. I think most of us are unsure of God’s design for our struggles (I certainly am) and I think it’s important to remember that many of the things we struggle with don’t come from God.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond in detail & I wish you all the best.

 

[ZMystiCat]

In the article that originated this thread, there’s no suggestion of this and nor have you produced any.

Yet you continue glossing over key elements of what I’ve said.

So no-one’s actually said this but because there’s a debate going on about free speech, LifeSite might be bad for democracy? With respect, this is unsound reasoning.

I never said they were bad. I was simply calling out the laziness of the “Apple’s actions are bad for democracy” argument.

I don’t see anything in the first article you linked suggesting God doesn’t love gay people.

I linked the thread. Did you even read what people were saying there?

I’m uncertain what’s discriminatory in the third linked piece.

I find that seriously hard to believe.

It doesn’t appear that the Vatican is delighted with it, either.

I never said that disagreeing with transgender ideology is wrong. I specifically called out how they address it.

produce articles which you personally disagree

If you notice, I almost never called out what they teach specifically. I called out how they express disagreement, specifically doing so in a disagreeable way. And on the two matters I did call them out for their teaching, they were well outside simple presentations of orthodoxy.

Would it be expressing & promoting the truths of the Church, as a bulwark against the relentless & quite different messaging of modern secular society and media? Or would it be something else?

This is a false dilemma. Presenting truth and loving someone aren’t exactly the same (Rev. 2:1-7). Presenting truth can be part of loving someone, but it can also be done out of spite, hate, anger, etc.

it doesn’t, nor is it required to

If they want to present themselves as a Christian site, I’d argue that they are required to. Part of being a Christian is loving others and showing that you wish to understand them, what they’re going through, and how you can help. LifeSite doesn’t seem to try at any of that, rendering their point - professing orthodoxy - kind of pointless, at least on the LGBT front. I’ve already referenced Revelation 2:1-7, but 1 Corinthians 13 is relevant here as well.

 

[Weserthy]

It looks like Apple has reversed course and LifeSiteNews is back on Apple News.

Apple News backtracks, re-enables LifeSite's channel - LifeSite

 

[Finn]

Yet you continue glossing over key elements of what I’ve said.

I’m not sure what elements you think I’m glossing over. You claimed that LifeSite seems to think they’re above platform rules yet you can’t support that claim & it needs support to be taken seriously. Their recent reinstatement by Apple doesn’t suggest wilful disregard of the rules.

I never said they were bad. I was simply calling out the laziness of the “Apple’s actions are bad for democracy” argument.

It was very much implied with ‘some might say that the way LifeSite treats the LGBT community is not good for democracy’.

I linked the thread. Did you even read what people were saying there?

No, I read the article which started the linked thread because you made claims about the article, not the commentary on it.

I never said that disagreeing with transgender ideology is wrong. I specifically called out how they address it.

I think you’re failing to make a distinction between the ideology and the individual. The ideology needs to be called out in a clear, unambiguous & critical manner. Part of the reason that it’s managed to spead so aggressively & cause so much damage is because of the lack of resistance to it in mainstream culture. Attacking the ideology is a merciful attempt to help individuals caught within it or otherwise impacted by it - which is much needed.

This is a false dilemma. Presenting truth and loving someone aren’t exactly the same (Rev. 2:1-7). Presenting truth can be part of loving someone, but it can also be done out of spite, hate, anger, etc.

Of course. I wasn’t presenting an either/or choice - caritas in veritate, right? I agree with you, truth can be misused deliberately. But presenting truth must be part of loving someone. It’s not optional. It’s not love to let someone languish in error or be deceived. Unfortunately truth is a rare commodity in mainstream society, particularly in relation to the topics that LifeSite covers.

Some of the tragic results of not enough truth in relation to transgender ideology? Hormone blockers for children, radical & irreversible elective surgery & high suicide rates.

If they want to present themselves as a Christian site, I’d argue that they are required to. Part of being a Christian is loving others and showing that you wish to understand them…LifeSite doesn’t seem to try at any of that, rendering their point - professing orthodoxy - kind of pointless, at least on the LGBT front.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...-seeking-a-cure-but-getting-the-wrong-answers

Professing orthodoxy - speaking the truth - is never pointless, but it often makes the speaker unpopular and a target for attack.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

and how you can help

Didn’t you say that one of the problems you have with them is they promote conversation therapy?

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

And some would say that the way LifeSite treats the LGBT community is not good for democracy.

What does that even mean?