5 ms·

Free (except for the cost of bandwidth/internet access, including devices), instantly (unless internet service is poor or inconsistent or both), and anywhere (t

by sidlls 8y ago

Free (except for the cost of bandwidth/internet access, including devices), instantly (unless internet service is poor or inconsistent or both), and anywhere (that has internet access), you mean. There's nothing improved about the argument, it's just obfuscated better.

petra 8y ago
The internet, at least intermittently and slowly -which is enough for books, is more accessible than public libraries.
- sedachv 8y ago
  Not for everybody. I see a lot of poor and indigent people who are at the library using the desktops and loaner laptops to access the Internet.
- tivert 8y ago
  > The internet, at least intermittently and slowly -which is enough for books, is more accessible than public libraries. No. The internet almost always costs the individual money to access, unlike public libraries. That means the internet is less accessible to low income people. Also public libraries have evolved into one of the main ways that many people access the internet. It's foolish to advocate replacing public libraries with something that the public libraries actually provide for many of their patrons.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Only if you ignore the cost of a device and service.
l9k 8y ago
Compare internet to library: Free: Transportation to go to your library (2x train ticket, or car + gas): minimum ~$5 / day so $60 a month, plus library card if not free Instantly: ~30 minutes to go, 30 minutes to get back home, depending on where you live. Worst internet connection need a few seconds. Anywhere: you have to physically go to the one library and hope you find the book you're looking for. Nowadays you have internet access pretty much anywhere.
- dralley 8y ago
  Are you dense? You ignored all of their points. A homeless person won't have an internet connection or a computer. A poor person won't necessarily have a computer. Internet in some rural areas is not just slow, but also spotty.
  - l9k 8y ago
    No need for name-calling on here please. For the large majority of people (95%+), as per my last message, the library is not always preferable in terms of cost, distance and availability, that's all. There are reasons most people don't go. But for some, libraries are still relevant. Please notice that I never said the libraries are useless. Even a poor rural person, usually working a lot and living far from a city center, might not have the time nor the financial resources to often go to the library. Also, I've seen homeless people with a cheap tablet in NYC streets using the Link NYC hotspots [1] for free charging and WiFi. [1] https://www.link.nyc/ https://www.link.nyc/
- convolvatron 8y ago
  I did research before the internet had all this content. I lived on the east coast, so it was possible for me to take a day trip to the LOC. there I could spent all day and a sackful of dimes to execute 4-5 cycles of following references before they shut down for the night. then carry my box full of photocopies with oddly clipped margins back to my office for digestion. so sure, that sucked in comparison, but no one was monetizing my activity. i didn't have to struggle against a suggestion machine that had decided I was in a different field. no one was showing me advertisements. no question that digitizing and indexing the worlds information has been a huge benefit, but there isn't any fundamental reason why we had to invite all these sleezy business people into our lives in exchange. they just latched onto a new thing, seeped into any available crack, and presented themselves as part of the package. a post internet library would be global, noncommercial, unfettered access to as many resources possible (hi Brewster).

by sidlls 8y ago

petra 8y ago

The internet, at least intermittently and slowly -which is enough for books, is more accessible than public libraries.

sedachv 8y ago
Not for everybody. I see a lot of poor and indigent people who are at the library using the desktops and loaner laptops to access the Internet.
tivert 8y ago
> The internet, at least intermittently and slowly -which is enough for books, is more accessible than public libraries. No. The internet almost always costs the individual money to access, unlike public libraries. That means the internet is less accessible to low income people. Also public libraries have evolved into one of the main ways that many people access the internet. It's foolish to advocate replacing public libraries with something that the public libraries actually provide for many of their patrons.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Only if you ignore the cost of a device and service.

l9k 8y ago

Compare internet to library: Free: Transportation to go to your library (2x train ticket, or car + gas): minimum ~$5 / day so $60 a month, plus library card if not free Instantly: ~30 minutes to go, 30 minutes to get back home, depending on where you live. Worst internet connection need a few seconds. Anywhere: you have to physically go to the one library and hope you find the book you're looking for. Nowadays you have internet access pretty much anywhere.

dralley 8y ago
Are you dense? You ignored all of their points. A homeless person won't have an internet connection or a computer. A poor person won't necessarily have a computer. Internet in some rural areas is not just slow, but also spotty.
- l9k 8y ago
  No need for name-calling on here please. For the large majority of people (95%+), as per my last message, the library is not always preferable in terms of cost, distance and availability, that's all. There are reasons most people don't go. But for some, libraries are still relevant. Please notice that I never said the libraries are useless. Even a poor rural person, usually working a lot and living far from a city center, might not have the time nor the financial resources to often go to the library. Also, I've seen homeless people with a cheap tablet in NYC streets using the Link NYC hotspots [1] for free charging and WiFi. [1] https://www.link.nyc/ https://www.link.nyc/
convolvatron 8y ago
I did research before the internet had all this content. I lived on the east coast, so it was possible for me to take a day trip to the LOC. there I could spent all day and a sackful of dimes to execute 4-5 cycles of following references before they shut down for the night. then carry my box full of photocopies with oddly clipped margins back to my office for digestion. so sure, that sucked in comparison, but no one was monetizing my activity. i didn't have to struggle against a suggestion machine that had decided I was in a different field. no one was showing me advertisements. no question that digitizing and indexing the worlds information has been a huge benefit, but there isn't any fundamental reason why we had to invite all these sleezy business people into our lives in exchange. they just latched onto a new thing, seeped into any available crack, and presented themselves as part of the package. a post internet library would be global, noncommercial, unfettered access to as many resources possible (hi Brewster).