15 ms·
It’s funny seeing this comment and the article about Seattle libraries reducing digital copies both on HNews front page at the same time. I love libraries. It
by yellow_postit 2y ago
It’s funny seeing this comment and the article about Seattle libraries reducing digital copies both on HNews front page at the same time.
I love libraries.
It also feels like all our public institutions in the US are crumbling under assault from all sides.
- j45 2y agoLimiting or undermining literacy remains important to those who benefit from it.
- nox101 2y agowhat logic leads to this conclusion? I tend to lean to the rising tide lifts all boats. who benefits from illiteracy?
- Root_Denied 2y ago> who benefits from illiteracy? Those already on top. They can afford to educate their own line and hoard resources across generations doing so. They can fail as many times as it takes before they finally succeed because of this. They throw the bodies of the world at their problems until they are solved, which necessitates an uneducated populace that doesn't realize they're chattel and canon fodder to this purpose. A populace that fear collective power, that fears community beyond immediate family, that shies away from actions that would better the world in favor of actions that are less risky personally.
- grepLeigh 2y agoUNESCO published a report on the beneficiaries of illiteracy at global, national, and regional levels (1989): https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000085962 https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000085962
- yunohn 2y agoElites are always worried about the labor crisis - “nobody wants to work”. Usually this is about blue collar work, and their desire to underpay and overwork service/laborers. Globally, this class of people definitely wants to reduce literacy to keep a stream of manual labor inflowing.
- bumby 2y agoThis is a strong claim that needs some data to back it up.
- animex 2y agoPeople who want to control the illiterate and subjugate their voting power to their own ends.
- Karellen 2y agoThe number of vastly unequal societies throughout history who have banned the lower classes from learning how to read, or from any kind of education at all - beyond whatever narrow training will make them better perform their specific duties for those on top. ...and not just historically. Some societies where significant minority groups are banned from getting an education, in order to further perpetuate their marginalisation, still exist today.
- boringg 2y agoThe response to your comment thread here is some pretty high flying conspiracies. The thought that those in power would try and make the country illiterate is straight up ridiculous. That would completely undermine the competitiveness of the country AND the time line to get any benefit for the "elites or whomever is behind it" would be significantly long. Now if you are talking about a country like India - sure I could see Modi doing that. In that case it would be more about restricting growth and investment into education then dismantling an economy built on knowledge.
- TheOtherHobbes 2y agoNo one is suggesting billionaires are rational.
- j45 2y agoI don't think I said anything about making people illiterate. Undermining literacy means so they are not as literate as they could be to improve their lives. For example, there are more than a few studies on literacy and education levels of the political spectrum for better and worse. India is a different world. The crime against humanity that is the caste system all but forbade 1-3% of the population to be permitted to learn how to read. 95-98% of Indians were not permitted to learn how to read, and had to rely on the interpretations of the less populous castes. Ironically it is a minority that largely broke this logjam and helped push literacy for the many forward. I'll gladly take the downvotes for speaking the truth about caste being a divider between people and society.
- no_exit 2y ago> what logic leads to this conclusion? Any decent book about Reconstruction and Jim Crow.
- cafard 2y agoThe advocates of "whole-language" learning as against "phonics" seem to do a fair job of limiting or undermining literacy. Yet how it benefits them I don't see. And what is the reference of "it" in the last sentence? Literacy, or limited or undermined literacy?
- j45 2y agoI should have said and, instead of for. Undermining is a form of limiting, and limiting is a form of undermining.
- creole_wither 2y agoA literate population that reads what you want them to read is even better.
- Cthulhu_ 2y agoHence book bans and torching, although it's backfiring because they're being too general to try and avoid coming across as too totalitarian, so things like bibles are being banned too. Whoops.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ddingus 2y agoThey are. Every single public resource is seen as a potential market opportunity being squandered away, or as competition other players do not want to see in play.
- atoav 2y agoWell a library is a place where a population can spend the day getting smarter while not spending money. If you're rich, powerful and an unethical asshole those are two things you definitely do not want. Sadly many people seem to think they are really showing the folks up there by retreating from any form of self-education once they are out of school. The opposite couldn't be more true.
- leonroy 2y agoDidn’t Andrew Carnegie, the very definition of rich and difficult to work for spend a huge chunk of his fortune funding 3000+ libraries? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library
- defrost 2y agoThe criticisms were telling though, Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) and many others claimed he had a rich mans agenda, seeking fame rather than improvement, paying for buildings and not books, maintaining segregation rather than open access, paying for bricks was "cheaper" than paying taxes, etc. Not undercutting the role of libraries, just pointing out that philanthropy from the wealthy can be a mixed bag of indirect control and agenda pushing at times, wrapped up in tidy looking tax avoidance multi layered "charity" arrangements.
- gameman144 2y agoIt's always fair to criticize, but it's also very plausible that Carnegie paid for buildings instead of books so that his charity would improve things for the longer term. Also, as long as the outcomes are good, I personally don't care one iota whether a person is doing them for the wrong reasons.
- grepLeigh 2y agoOverDrive (and Libby) were acquired by KKR, the behemoth PE firm responsible for bankrupting Toys R Us. KKR also acquired one of the Big Five publishing houses last year. I'm worried about public library funds being squeezed by an extractive PE playbook. I wonder what kind of negotiating power a regional library has in that situation. Do state library agencies have more leverage than regional libraries? Do large states like California have more leverage in negotiating digital licenses than smaller states? Would a national library system have even more leverage? I'll ask a librarian tomorrow and report back.
- lstamour 2y agoOverDrive is a strong player but they’re still a commodity. Publishers and libraries can use other lending platforms if and when they emerge as stronger competitors. This article serves as a good overview: https://openeducationalberta.ca/ciicm/chapter/public-library-ebook-loan-limitations-and-licensing-agreements/ https://openeducationalberta.ca/ciicm/chapter/public-library... The problem is the publishers - they don’t always sign on to provide books to every new platform and don’t always release to every platform. But other platforms do exist: https://bookriot.com/comparing-public-library-ebook-platforms/ https://bookriot.com/comparing-public-library-ebook-platform...
- r0ks0n 2y agokkr is kanker in dutch
- runamok 2y agoOh no, worst news I have heard in a while. My wife and I LOVE Libby.