An editorial posted by an abortion advocate in the New York Times claims that LifeNews.com is a fake news website and it encourages Facebook to begin censoring our news.
Rossalyn Warren writes in the New York Times op-ed that the social media giant Facebook is reportedly ignoring fake news websites and includes LifeNews.com as one of those supposedly fake websites. However nowhere in her article does she provide any proof or evidence of that false claim. If LifeNews is as fake as Warren claims surely she could produce even one example of a piece of fake news but she is totally unable to meet even that low threshold.
Warren begins her article by blasting a website that took pro-abortion former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to task over her support for the partial birth abortion procedure. She spends three or four paragraphs of the article on her fake claims — all the while ignoring the fact that Clinton does indeed support the banned abortion procedure commonly known as partial birth abortion.
Warren claims there is a “vast amount of misinformation and unevidenced stories about reproductive rights, science and health.” Yet again she is unable to cite even one example.
And she complains that so-called “Evidence-based, credible articles” from news outlets that are longtime abortion advocates did not make the top of the most shared articles on Facebook. Perhaps that’s because most Americans realize that the New York Times And The Washington Post have an extensive liberal bias and are firmly embedded in the pro-abortion camp.
She complains that articles from LifeNews.com were some of the most shared articles on Facebook, whines about LifeNews having almost 1 million Facebook followers and her article alludes to this website supposedly being one of the fake news websites that Facebook ought to take into account.
Yet Warren’s post is entirely fake news — where she puts forward her opinion and substitutes it for fact. Simply claiming that a website is fake news doesn’t make it fake news, especially when Warren is completely unable to offer even one shred of evidence to support her theory. Not only does Warren not even mention a single news story from LifeNews.com that is supposedly fake news she offers absolutely no, in her words, “credible evidence” refuting or rebutting even a single word or sentence written at LifeNews.com.
Warren next scolds another pro-life organization for also having a massive following on Facebook. She seems to be substituting a claim of fake news for her apparent jealousy that pro-life organizations have amassed such a strong following on social media from the majority of Americans who have real issues with virtually unlimited abortions. Her jealousy is even more apparent when she bemoans the fact that pro-life organizations like lifenews.com have stories that generate more engagement.
“People on Facebook engage with anti-abortion content more than abortion-rights content at a “disproportionate rate,” she said, which, as a result of the company’s algorithms, means more people see it,” Warren gripes.
Imagine that. Most people don’t “like” killing babies in abortions. Thank God sanity prevails outside the ivory tower.
It is obviously no surprise that the liberal pro-abortion New York Times offered Warren space for her grousing. But social media outlets like Facebook would be better off ignoring her request to censor points of view she just doesn’t care for. The reason social media websites like Facebook have done so well is because they allow the users to pick and choose what content they want to read rather than force-feeding Warren’s pro-abortion agenda on them. Facebook would do well to ignore Warren and stick with its proven business model.
Sorry Ms Warren but just because your side can’t compete in the arena of public opinion doesn’t mean you get to change the rules. The public clearly has an appetite for news and information from an accurate and pro-life perspective. It’s unfortunate that the only way you feel you can compete is to make false claims about websites like LifeNews.com and call for censoring us simply because most Americans aren’t buying what you’re trying to sell. That’s how Communist countries like North Korea operate but not here.