Maybe I'm the one confused here, but your response doesn't make sense to me -- it's like you're almost agreeing with the librarian but you don't think you are. Airbnb "started it" by focusing on one specific service (libraries) and humble-brag-whining about how it better improve because they/customers are paying so much. It makes perfect sense then to show how that one specific service Airbnb singled out will not be able to achieve what Airbnb says it should, because it doesn't get nearly as much money as Airbnb implied by tossing around a huge number.
As to hypothetical numbers at the end, why? The percentage the libraries get is fixed by the city, presumably...
P.S. Apparently they have variations of the ad for other services. Maybe on some, however they phrased it makes more sense, but not really in the libraries' case.
P.P.S There is actually a small fallacy/glossing-over in the librarian's argument: the $12MM (or 1.4% thereof) is (presumably) an increase that Airbnb can claim credit for. But theoretically the library could have other sources of income that together would allow for more opening hours. I guess the assumption is that they don't have a lot of surplus.