LifeSiteNewsDotCom

LifeSiteNews is a small anti-abortion activist group, pro-life journalism outlet, and news aggregator. It was launched in 1997 as a spinoff of Campaign Life Coalition. Both are based in Toronto. Unless you are a traditionalist Catholic or a pro-life culture warrior, you probably never heard of them.

They have had a lot of excitement lately.   For a year they have been fighting for their life as an organization. They had become very dependent on their Facebook page as their primary way to communicate with their network of donors, most of whom are Catholic families making small-time contributions. Facebook has been waging war against them.

Facebook ghetto

In addition to filtering them out of searches and giving them the “shadow ban” treatment, Facebook has refused to run their ads:

One response that our team received as the reason for Facebook’s disapproval of our ads is equally concerning. The ad pertaining to this response simply showed an image of a pregnant mother holding a photo of her baby’s ultrasound…

I do see that the ad has a fetus and while it involves your ad text and topic, it may be viewed too strong for Facebook to allow to show.

Such viewpoint discrimination is a direct attack on our shared life and family values, and is greatly affecting our efforts to fundraise and spread our news.

Yes, a pregnant woman showing off the ultrasound picture of her baby is “too strong” for Facebook. That is a transparent excuse that says Facebook does not like advocacy for babies. Facebook is enforcing the Culture of Death.

They do this by decreeing that accurately reporting on the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood is “fake news.” Truth is irrelevant; what matters is the narrative.

Facebook recently admitted to combating “fake news” by developing a system that ranks users’ trustworthiness on a scale from 1 to 10. This is determined by users’ opinions rather than objective investigations!

This means that aggressively pro-choice and anti-family Facebook users can rank LifeSiteNews as “untrustworthy” with the simple click of a button – just because they dislike the facts that we publish.

Facebook has therefore made it ridiculously easy for our highly organized, well-financed (George Soros, etc) and hateful opponents to have LifeSiteNews wrongly categorized as “fake news” and our traffic suppressed according to Facebook’s “terms of agreement.” Truth does not matter according to this mob-mentality-serving process.  

Sex scandals

If you are wondering where it was that you recently saw their name, it was because they landed the biggest Catholic scoop of August. In the middle of the Catholic summer of distress over new sex scandals, Archbishop Viganò released a letter that said that Pope Francis and the rest of the Vatican were aware of Cardinal McCarrick’s habit of pressing young seminarians for sex, and also that he had covered for homosexual priests who preyed on teenage boys. Pope Francis had rehabilitated McCarrick in spite of this knowledge.

Archbishop Viganò gave his letter to two conservative Italian journalists that he trusts. He also sent it to LifeSiteNews. Evidently that was the only English-language outlet that he trusts.

Since then, other traditionalist Catholics have gone directly to LifeSiteNews with background and new developments on these scandals.

Search and you will not find

Facebook is not the only internet service that is hostile to pro-life advocates. Several news aggregators have the habit of demoting LifeSiteNews as well as other conservative outlets. So for the past weeks we have seen searches that turned up dozens of articles and editorials that cited LifeSiteNews, but unless you type “lifesitenews” in your search, you will not see their original reporting on the first four pages of results.

Allies

I am not a Catholic. As a Lutheran, the Church of Rome teaches that I am condemned to hell as a Schismatic. Nevertheless I have several Catholic friends, and I find that traditionalist Catholics are my most trustworthy allies in the culture wars. I need strong Catholics to help rescue western civilization from the assaults of Satan.

Please consider giving a little support to LifeSiteNews, either with a few bucks, or by sharing their plight with your Catholic and pro-life friends.


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

9 thoughts on “LifeSiteNewsDotCom”

  1. Here is their plea:
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dont-let-facebook-label-us-fake-news

    The LifeSiteNews scoop with Archbishop Viganò’s letter, dated August 25:
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-us-nuncio-pope-francis-knew-of-mccarricks-misdeeds-repealed-sanction

     

    LifeSiteNews has become an even more interesting site than they ever were. If you are interested in the current raging sex scandals, here is an interesting recent editorial. It may be just a tad “inside baseball” for most non-Catholics, but there is a lot here, especially for Catholics, to consider.
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/liberal-team-francis-apologists-panicking-over-effectiveness-of-vigano-stat

  2. I think this is something we must keep in mind. The gatekeepers can decide that anything is an equivalent to a swear word and have you bleeped out. There is often no recourse for their judgment can be final especially if your only way to make your case is through their platform.

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  3. 10 Cents:
    I am confused by the chart. What does it mean specifically, Bubba?

    Yeah, what’s “Reach”, MJBubba?  I can guess, but I’d rather know.

    Thanks for the clear example, seemingly, of this problem that has been in the news, of malevolent design of algorithm.

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  4. jzdro:

    10 Cents:
    I am confused by the chart. What does it mean specifically, Bubba?

    Yeah, what’s “Reach”, MJBubba?  I can guess, but I’d rather know.

    Thanks for the clear example, seemingly, of this problem that has been in the news, of malevolent design of algorithm.

    Reach is a measure of how many users landed on a web page in a period of time.   It includes their posts and their ads.   I don’t know what timeframe they used, but it might be on a per week basis.   (This is different than “impressions” which is another Facebook metric.   Impressions is almost always higher because some users land on a page twice within the period.)

    So, while the number of persons who “liked” their pages was rising, their reach plummeted.   This is because Facebook was constricting their spread by restricting the way “shares” went to groups, plus Facebook refused to run some of their ads.  The words to describe Facebook’s actions are not printable in this forum.

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar

Leave a Reply