this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2024
0 points (50.0% liked)

Libraries

506 readers
1 users here now

For talk of all things related to libraries!

Please follow this instances rules.

To find more communities on this instance, go to: !411@literature.cafe

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] debanqued@beehaw.org 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The elitist idea that it’s okay to exclude people from public service for not having property cannot be framed as “harm reduction” when in fact it fails at that. The people who have mobile phones and subscriptions are the same people who can afford Wi-Fi at home, data plans, etc. These are people who are already served by the private marketplace. You merely give them a convenience at the expense of spending money in a way that marginalises the needy. It’s not just discrimination you advocate -- the money is poorly allocated when it should go toward serving precisely those you exclude; the ones underserved by the private sector. By catering for the more privileged you only introduce harm by creating a false baseline that harms the excluded groups even more. Libraries were more inclusive 10 years ago, before they needlessly introduced these SMS-imposing captive portals. And some still are inclusive. Some poorly managed libraries have gone in an exclusive direction and this trend is spreading.

We’re at #2.

Who? Which library is at #2? Some libraries are entirely inclusive and treat everyone equally. Some libraries have regressed and have no pressure to join the inclusive world. You’re opposing the pressure that’s needed to make them better. That’s not helpful.. that just enables the problem to worsen.

[–] unmagical@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Plenty of unhoused people have mobile phones and corresponding plans.

Who? Which library is at #2?

That's the topic of discussion at hand.

I'm not saying we should exclude people for what they may or may not have. I am saying that it is better to serve everyone, and that serving more than 0 people is a better option than serving exactly 0 people.

[–] debanqued@beehaw.org 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

That’s the topic of discussion at hand.

When you say “we are at 2”, you make it sound like the royal “we” as a society. So it’s not the right language for what you were trying to express. The correct pronoun would be “they”. Some libraries are inclusive and some are not. The exclusive ones are at #2.

BTW- this necropost is due to Beehaw being unreachable for 4 months. I finally got back in today to see your msg.