5 ms·

Perhaps we should pay someone to decide what people are allowed to look at on those computers. Actually, that doesn't seem fair. Perhaps we should pay a committ

by mileszs 16y ago

Perhaps we should pay someone to decide what people are allowed to look at on those computers. Actually, that doesn't seem fair. Perhaps we should pay a committee to decide, and they can hand their decision to an IT department to implement. Well, I suppose adding another responsibility to the library's IT staff will mean we'll have to pay to add a position to the department so they're staffed well enough. There. Problem solved. Funds are no longer being misused. Right? Because this is the internet, the above probably seems really snarky. It's meant to be a calm, civil anecdote to illustrate my point, but I apologize if it does seem hostile. In any case, I think preventing people from using their library computer time as they see fit 1) will result in upset users due to many false positives, 2) results in more ... "big-brother-ism", if you will, 3) will cost as much money as it saves.

mberning 16y ago
I see your point. From a different perspective, if the library weren't so complacent on enforcing the rules there would be a need for less workstations, less IT staff, less infrastructure, less management. I guess I look at people surfing porn and youtube on public computers and see that as a 'waste' of money as compared to how it was intended to be used.
- silentbicycle 16y ago
  If they're anything like every library I've ever worked for or visited in my entire life, they're probably too underfunded and understaffed to perfectly block people from using the public computers to do anything the local policy considers inappropriate. I highly doubt it's a matter of complacency.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    In fact, most librarians I know (admittedly not too many) are even more "information should be free" than your average GNU hippie. These are the places with a sign up in the windows that said "The FBI has not yet raided us," after all.
    - silentbicycle 16y ago
      That matches my experience. Those positions are not contradictory, though. It's about preventing a hostile environment for people who want to use the library, and keeping anybody from monopolizing public resources.
      - steveklabnik 16y ago
        It's true. There's a difference between acknowledging that and getting righteous about 'my tax dollars going to some poor people looking at porn,' that's all I'm saying.
        mberning 16y ago
        Since when does watching where your money goes make you righteous? Has nothing to do whether I think they are right or wrong for looking at porn. I don't give a shit if people look at porn, or do drugs, or work as a prostitute. What drives me nuts is that this unsanctioned use drives more and more cost every year. If all the people viewing porn at the library were kicked out how many workstations would be rendered unnecessary? Probably a significant number. Those funds that would have been spent on those workstation could be put to use somewhere else, such as local police, fire, sanitation, etc. A rather better use of money in my book. Sorry if that comes off as being 'righteous'.
        steveklabnik 16y ago
        > Sorry if that comes off as being 'righteous'. The problem is that you're presenting it as a class issue. Read it again: > Glancing over the screens I could see a variety of pornographic images, facebook and myspace pages, and youtube. The library is a great resource, but I was completely pissed off that my tax dollars go to support that. This is a bit different than an argument that they could cut down on 'probably a significant number' of computers if there was lower usage. The whole point of having a resource is to use it, so I'd argue that we should be trying to promote utilization anyway... 'surfing youtube' vs 'how it's intended to be used' is missing the forest for the trees: libraries are about disseminating information. > Thus, modern libraries are increasingly being redefined as places to get unrestricted access to information in many formats and from many sources. They are extending services beyond the physical walls of a building, by providing material accessible by electronic means, and by providing the assistance of librarians in navigating and analyzing tremendous amounts of information with a variety of digital tools. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library
rapind 16y ago
I'd pay a small tax increase of .1 cents to abolish internet pornography in libraries. Call me a party pooper, but there's a time and place, and the place for pornography is definitely not public spaces. I don't care if there's a nude painting on display, but I do care if there's some hard core humping on a computer monito in a public place where my child can see it... I mean he was just born, give him at least a few years innocence!
- silentbicycle 16y ago
  You make it sound so easy. Leaving aside the complicated legal question for determining what is and isn't considered pornography* , how would you go about actually doing it? Is internet filtering perfectly reliable? Would hiring several extra library employees specifically to watch the internet stations suffice? Library staff are already trying to prevent people from viewing pornography on the public computers, working within the resources available. Sheesh. * At the library system I worked at, it was a matter of staff judgement.
  - rapind 16y ago
    I'm perfectly happy with staff judgement. If they need it then I vote we pay them for their extra time or another resource to help (well I'm Canadian so my vote only counts up here). Didn't mean to say it was easy, jus worthwhile.
  - rapind 16y ago
    I reread my comment after it had been downvoted and realized I was probably not clear at all. I don't care about the downvoting, but I wanted to clear it up so no one reading it felt persecuted or unappreciated. When I said .1 cents I actually meant a small amount but not a trivial amount per paycheck multiplied by the tax paying population. So around 7 million per year. Not sure if that's significant enough, but it was just a figure off the top of my head meant to demonstrate that by paying a small amount individually we could help the issue. Anyways, I've over-explained it now... but I felt like a douche when I checked my threads this morning.
    - 16y ago

by mileszs 16y ago

mberning 16y ago

I see your point. From a different perspective, if the library weren't so complacent on enforcing the rules there would be a need for less workstations, less IT staff, less infrastructure, less management. I guess I look at people surfing porn and youtube on public computers and see that as a 'waste' of money as compared to how it was intended to be used.

silentbicycle 16y ago
If they're anything like every library I've ever worked for or visited in my entire life, they're probably too underfunded and understaffed to perfectly block people from using the public computers to do anything the local policy considers inappropriate. I highly doubt it's a matter of complacency.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  In fact, most librarians I know (admittedly not too many) are even more "information should be free" than your average GNU hippie. These are the places with a sign up in the windows that said "The FBI has not yet raided us," after all.
  - silentbicycle 16y ago
    That matches my experience. Those positions are not contradictory, though. It's about preventing a hostile environment for people who want to use the library, and keeping anybody from monopolizing public resources.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      It's true. There's a difference between acknowledging that and getting righteous about 'my tax dollars going to some poor people looking at porn,' that's all I'm saying.
      - mberning 16y ago
        Since when does watching where your money goes make you righteous? Has nothing to do whether I think they are right or wrong for looking at porn. I don't give a shit if people look at porn, or do drugs, or work as a prostitute. What drives me nuts is that this unsanctioned use drives more and more cost every year. If all the people viewing porn at the library were kicked out how many workstations would be rendered unnecessary? Probably a significant number. Those funds that would have been spent on those workstation could be put to use somewhere else, such as local police, fire, sanitation, etc. A rather better use of money in my book. Sorry if that comes off as being 'righteous'.
        steveklabnik 16y ago
        > Sorry if that comes off as being 'righteous'. The problem is that you're presenting it as a class issue. Read it again: > Glancing over the screens I could see a variety of pornographic images, facebook and myspace pages, and youtube. The library is a great resource, but I was completely pissed off that my tax dollars go to support that. This is a bit different than an argument that they could cut down on 'probably a significant number' of computers if there was lower usage. The whole point of having a resource is to use it, so I'd argue that we should be trying to promote utilization anyway... 'surfing youtube' vs 'how it's intended to be used' is missing the forest for the trees: libraries are about disseminating information. > Thus, modern libraries are increasingly being redefined as places to get unrestricted access to information in many formats and from many sources. They are extending services beyond the physical walls of a building, by providing material accessible by electronic means, and by providing the assistance of librarians in navigating and analyzing tremendous amounts of information with a variety of digital tools. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library

rapind 16y ago

I'd pay a small tax increase of .1 cents to abolish internet pornography in libraries. Call me a party pooper, but there's a time and place, and the place for pornography is definitely not public spaces. I don't care if there's a nude painting on display, but I do care if there's some hard core humping on a computer monito in a public place where my child can see it... I mean he was just born, give him at least a few years innocence!

silentbicycle 16y ago
You make it sound so easy. Leaving aside the complicated legal question for determining what is and isn't considered pornography* , how would you go about actually doing it? Is internet filtering perfectly reliable? Would hiring several extra library employees specifically to watch the internet stations suffice? Library staff are already trying to prevent people from viewing pornography on the public computers, working within the resources available. Sheesh. * At the library system I worked at, it was a matter of staff judgement.
- rapind 16y ago
  I'm perfectly happy with staff judgement. If they need it then I vote we pay them for their extra time or another resource to help (well I'm Canadian so my vote only counts up here). Didn't mean to say it was easy, jus worthwhile.
- rapind 16y ago
  I reread my comment after it had been downvoted and realized I was probably not clear at all. I don't care about the downvoting, but I wanted to clear it up so no one reading it felt persecuted or unappreciated. When I said .1 cents I actually meant a small amount but not a trivial amount per paycheck multiplied by the tax paying population. So around 7 million per year. Not sure if that's significant enough, but it was just a figure off the top of my head meant to demonstrate that by paying a small amount individually we could help the issue. Anyways, I've over-explained it now... but I felt like a douche when I checked my threads this morning.
  - 16y ago