I consider it to be leaning towards anti-suicide, but comparatively neutral. A stronger stance could be that it's controlled opposition. I wouldn't criticise that stance, as it's entirely possible and I don't know anything about the site other than what's presented on the pages.
I have a similar stance to LostAllHope, although I present differently, probably because I am actively suicidal and the owner/s of LAH is/are in remission.
I came across the site probably a decade ago. The content's been pretty consistent in its agenda. It doesn't hide its mission, but hopes it will succeed anyway. I believe the LAH owners respect some suicides more than others. They hope to prevent impulsive suicides, and are fairly clear about suicide being a last resort. The content is an effective deterrent to an impulsively suicidal person - it examines the problems with many impulsive suicide methods, and while the commentary tends to imply suicide is a bad option because a particular option, if executed poorly, is a poor option, what's presented on the site is factual and fair (not always rigorous). Much of what is discussed on LAH is a terrible idea. If an impulsively suicidal person came across that content, they would certainly feel discouraged, experience an anticlimax in motivation, and stop to consider what they are doing.
Even a non-impulsively suicidal person doing initial research might feel discouraged and stop to reconsider. The goal of most suicide interventions is to achieve that initial moment of hesitation - so that's enough to say LAH is anti-suicide, but more acceptingly; I agree that the stories are anti-suicide and there is certainly no competing information on there. The things to consider page is somewhat anti-suicide. But I don't think the things to consider page is as serious an offender, though it could be perceived as judgmental - I would like to hope that people who end their own existences have made their mind up, and statistically, it's not unreasonable to worry about.
I believe that it is possible for the impulsively suicidal to be truly grateful they didn't commit suicide, and that is the designated audience of the site. Every bit of content is designed with those people primarily in mind. I can understand this stance because, in publishing information about suicide, one can incur a fairly substantial ethical risk to themselves. I acknowledge also that those who feel that their lives have been saved (i.e. those who feel that their suicides would have been mistakes, or even regretted by them somehow) feel the need to pay it back by saving others. I guess the real dissonance is that it represents itself as something it's not in trying to carry out those duties.
It's harder for me to conclude the owner of the site has any judgment towards those who have made their mind up and want to proceed towards a reasoned suicide.
It presents itself as more impartial than it is, which is a tactic I've disliked. I still contend that the majority of information on LAH is fairly accurate, if a bit skewed at times (there's clear cherry picking and their methodology for finding and presenting information on some things is not really rigorous); it also has links (although they're a bit more buried) to suicide guides, although they're outdated somewhat...
I've generally judged LAH to be in alignment somewhat with a 'harm reduction' philosophy (you commonly see this with, say, drugs). I believe the owner of the site views suicide as tragic where it can be avoided, but tries to act in accordance with that philosophy. Their attitude, along with the actions they take to steer viewers of the site towards more encouraging, pro-life information, can be taken as anti-suicide. But I do believe that is an oversimplification.
One of the primary goals of LAH is to prevent long-term impairment/disfigurement from a botched suicide and I share it. It's the main reason why I used to answer a lot of threads with relatively obscure suicide information. I often worried that this could come off as overly discouraging and chase away people into worse situations.
One could semi-passively ideate using LAH for a long time without progressing further, as their need to research or ideate might be sated by the information on LAH.
LAH is certainly no suicide guide and it does not provide real useful information for how to die. In that sense, it is not neutral. It does provide some jumping-off points for research. If someone is determined to suicide in a thoughtful manner, they will need more information than is on LAH, and can presumably find it. One concern I've had with LAH previously is non-impulsive suicidal people, particularly those who can't research well, might conclude, wrongly for them, that if cleaner options are out of reach, they should go ahead with a bad plan, when a better plan could be realised.
I don't think being pro-living is necessarily a bad thing. If people want to live instead, I personally view that as a positive thing. SS and many users here share that stance - of hoping people will choose to live and supporting those who do. I think I have different standards than the LAH owners. They are also certainly more proactive about getting the information about there. It's a well-optimised search result.
Sorry for the long, rambly post. I thought about not making it. My executive functioning is too low to pare it down and find what information I've missed. Hopefully you find it pertinent anyway.
It's worth noting that the approach taken by LAH is fairly radical for such a popular site.
