3 ms·
> And of course, there's practically no social value of providing the public with free bodice rippers... Why not? > Some of the services end up being very exp
by triceratops 7mo ago
> And of course, there's practically no social value of providing the public with free bodice rippers...
Why not?
> Some of the services end up being very expensive, like ebook lending
We need something like a first-sale doctrine for electronic media. Blockchains would be ideal for tracking ownership.
- apparent 7mo agoIf most of lending were made up of educational texts, there would be a social value. Some people describe bodice rippers as porn for women, and people get addicted to them in the same way they get addicted to porn. Would a library ever lend porn out? I'm guessing no, because of the lack of social value. To the extent that bodice rippers are like porn, the same rationale would apply.
- IAmBroom 7mo agoAnd to the extent that those are two different things, your argument completely falls apart.
- apparent 7mo agoNope, because even if bodice rippers are not pure porn, it's not clear why libraries should subsidize entertainment for patrons. I'm not saying it's a terrible use of taxpayer money, just disagreeing with OP who said it's "such a great use of tax money". It does not bring people together, educate them, or provide for the common defense. Why not have movie theaters be government-run? It would make as much sense as providing free smut-adjacent books for (almost entirely) women.