Honestly, this seems like a great way to force the closure of libraries. There are other solutions than just forcing them to fend for themselves without any significant revenue stream.
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2024
0 points (50.0% liked)
Libraries
503 readers
3 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
If a library is exclusive the threat of defunding has two outcomes:
- compliance -- to become inclusive and (if necessary) show the door to elitists therein who think it’s okay to exclude people
- closure (unrealistic, see below)
Either outcome is better than directing public money toward exclusive services. In the case of closure, the same money can rightfully be redirected toward other libraries that are inclusive.
Compliance splits into two possible outcomes:
- exclusive services dropped entirely; inclusive services like book/media access continue
- exclusive services reworked to become inclusive
Both of those are better outcomes than inequality. Dropping an exclusive service invites pressure to fix it. In any case, the elitism of exclusive public service is unacceptible because it undermines human rights.
(edit) One thing I did not consider is the exclusive services getting non-public funding. If Wi-Fi is going to be exclusive/elitist, perhaps it’s fair enough to continue as such as long as Google or Apple finances it. The private sector is littered with exclusivity and that doesn’t pose a human rights issue. In any case it’s an injustice if one dime of public money goes toward a service that is exclusive, which has the perversion of potentially excluding someone whose tax funded it.
Having services for some rather than none is quintessential harm reduction. It is exactly as difficult to establish accessibility guidelines and help libraries reach them than it is to legislate defunding if libraries don't meet accessibility guidelines. I'm proposing the former option is better.
"If I can't play with a ball then no one can" is extremely childish and harmful.
Having services for some rather than none is quintessential harm reduction.
No it’s not. It increases the harm. We have already reached a point where many governments assume everyone is online and they have used that assumption to remove offline services. So people who are excluded are further harmed by the exclusivity as it creates more exclusivity. If a public service cannot be inclusive then nixing it ensures the infrastucture is in place to compensate knowing that the service is not in place.
extremely childish and harmful.
Elitism is extremely childish and harmful. Respect for human rights is socially responsible. It’s the adult stance.
Unified Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21:
“2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.”
If a service is no longer available offline and preventing accessing the online replacement for anyone using a library's services (such as those experiencing homelessness; many of whom are able bodied) you harm the entire population that doesn't have other means of access. If however, you have access at the library for some people but not others you are harming fewer people. It is better to harm fewer people.
Society will not rewind to the point that online access is not a requirement for comfortable living. Blocking some people from accessing services because others cannot use them will not fix that inequity, it will just hurt more people already dependent on public services.
As I said previously, the solution is to fund libraries adequately and provide them with the proper guidelines, training, and equipment so that they can help everyone rather than shutting everyone out because some people can't access their services today.
- Removing services for being inequitable is equality, in that it now harms everyone the same way--this is bad.
- Providing services for some people based on what they have access to or what they can provide is inequal and inequitable, in that some characteristic defines your eligibility and passively excludes people--this is bad.
- Providing services for everyone and providing additional assistance to those that require it is inequal but equitable, in that everyone gets different amounts or access necessary to achieve the same outcome--this is good.
We're at #2. I think we should get to #3. My understanding is that you are arguing for #1.
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.
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.