LGBTQs on Net Neutrality Repeal – “It’s now harder for us to get at your children!!”
The liberals are always in favor of increased government control and taking away people’s freedoms to “help” them. But they don’t like it when that gun barrel swings back towards them…
Conservatives were protesting the net neutrality repeal with scary stories of liberals restricting conservative websites. But the liberals protested the opposite: what if the Conservatives restrict liberal websites? You see, the Conservatives fear the liberals, but the liberals fear their true enemy: the free market.
“Without Net Neutrality protections, content providers generating critical information would likely have to pay more to get their content into (and from!) the hands of LGBT people,” she writes. “That means [internet service providers] become the de facto gatekeepers controlling what content survives and what content falls by the wayside in the wake of a market-driven content tsunami.”
You see, the liberals recognize what happens when the free market is allowed to work. Most people are hostile to liberal ideas. So the free market is generally hostile to liberal ideas. It suppresses liberal content through price competition. If few people are willing to pay to listen to the liberal message, or to use their limited bandwidth to watch gay Youtube videos, then the price of that content increases. When demand for gay content falls, prices for gay content go up.
Trending: ‘Socialism for Thee but not for Me’
The LGBTQs are scared that, with net neutrality, their content might have been receiving generous subsidies which artificially lowered its price. When prices are low, demand increases. With its repeal, any such subsidies will gradually end.
USING OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY
That’s why liberals always seek to gain control of other people’s money. They can’t raise the money themselves, so they maneuver themselves into position to be able to control it and direct the flow of that money. Or, in other words, to redirect it from the intended purpose of the contributors (which was probably Conservative in nature), and re-direct it to promote their own agendas.
That’s what they did with the mainline churches. The richest churches, like the Episcopal, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches became bureaucratic. The liberals are masters at controlling the bureaucratic machinery. They got into the bureaucratic positions in those churches and captured the flow of funds. That’s also why it is generally less likely for a Baptist church to go liberal: they are inherently less bureaucratic.
Here’s one important reason the liberals fear net neutrality: it might make it harder for children to access LGBTQ websites without their parents’ permission. Here’s how an online magazine puts it:
At GLAAD, we see every day how LGBTQ people benefit from online spaces. LGBTQ people in isolated areas rely on the internet to find communities they can’t access in real life. Online spaces provide access to vital resources on coming out, safer sex, healthcare and many other topics. Social media provides a rare place to showcase positive LGBTQ role models who are often underrepresented in tradition media. Online spaces help make possible smaller publications that serve LGBTQ audiences (like the one you’re reading right now).
Imagine an internet where telecom corporations only give high speed lanes to websites that can afford it. What happens when LGBTQ people in crisis attempt to access The Trevor Project only to find the website won’t load?
Imagine an internet vulnerable to the political views of corporate leadership. What happens when life saving HIV information is vetted by a conservative-leaning, abstinence-only board?
Imagine an internet where you have to buy website bundles similar to cable bundles. What happens when young LGBTQ children seeking information on coming find out their parents haven’t purchased that bundle?
With net neutrality, these situations were only hypothetical. After yesterday’s vote, these situations are all now plausible
CUTTING OFF FUTURE GENERATIONS
This is a serious problem. If LGBTQ content is more expensive to access, then it’s less likely young children will discover it online:
“Kids who want to know about different orientations and definitions and about the history of LGBT people, etc, they can’t access that when their videos are being restricted,” YouTube personality NeonFiona told Gizmodo. “Restricting these videos makes it harder for these kids to find information they need and the community that they’ve been missing.”
Since gay people can’t naturally procreate, they have to rely heavily on evangelism to convert people to their cause. Children, naturally impressionable in their early, formative years, are good candidates for evangelism.
Finding a community of like-minded LGBTQs helps lower the barriers of entry. That’s because most parents probably don’t want their sons becoming daughters, or their daughters becoming sons. And children love to rebel against their parents. The LGBTQs would love if they rebelled right into their online community basket.
But if the price for capturing the attention of children is raised, this means demand will fall. Their baskets will be emptied.
WHEN INCREASED CONTROL IS BAD
If the end of net neutrality provides more opportunities for parents to screen their children’s web surfing habits, then traffic to LGBTQ websites will fall. Without this flow of traffic from naturally curious children, this will likely reduce the LGBTQ reproduction rate.
Liberals are generally in favor of increased control and monitoring of its citizens by their government. That’s because Big Brother helps screen out the harmful things in our lives, like toilets that flush more than 1.6 gallons of water, dishwashing soap that actually works, and guns that we might use to shoot home invaders or stop violent public crimes from happening.
But what about when the free market, an institution much bigger than the government, works to keep LGBTQ material out of the hands of children? Or forces parents to opt-in to pay more money to grant access to LGBTQ material?
Well, that form of control?
They don’t like it one bit.