Re: OT: Public libraries

On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 22:46:34 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 4/22/2025 10:01 PM, legg wrote:

On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 14:40:29 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
 

On 4/22/2025 1:43 PM, legg wrote:

One of the benefits of library computers is access to the

>
Yes, but one can access that from home (computer, phone).  Hence
my comment regarding storing books in "high cost" spaces instead
of "in a back room"; if the staff are the ones who will be
PICKING the books, then there is no need for the co$metic$ of
public stacks.
>

<snip>
 
Anything that requires home hardware or internet payments is shifting
the publicly costed structure onto the backs of a public that can not
always afford it.
 
It's the reason public libraries were developed by altruists
in the first place.

>
But, by that reasoning, shouldn't healthcare, transportation,
potable water, food, education, etc. ALSO be "free" to those
populations?
>
Yet, you wouldn't want to shame them into admitting their *need*...
>
I've always seen the libraries as something that serves the ENTIRE
public, not just a portion thereof.
>

Hence they should continue to serve those without home computers
or expensive internet service contracts.

I'm not discussing health care, civic infrastructure, food marketing
, government education policy or etceteras; only the current function
 of public libraries ( in light of their immediate conventional
 purpose ).

Libraries, by themselves, don't NEED a public, and for millenia did
not serve them in any direct manner. There are many libraries today
that have no obligation to allow your (or anybody elses) access .

RL