Pretty much the tech version of
"I am a W.A.S.P., I pretend everybody that has different economic, social, and cultural differences from me doesn't exist"
If you could please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Edit: looks like you've done this more than once and also posted a bunch of unsubstantive comments. Could you please fix this? We're trying for somewhat better here.
Library use is declining across the board, but especially quickly in rural communities, among those with less than a high school degree, and among African americans.
To paraphrase Eddie Izzard, it's like the traveling Briton visiting Afghanistan. "Sausage, egg and chips please... you do speak English, you just don't try!"
Libraries were invented because information was only available on printed (or hand written) books, which were very expensive and scarce resources.
Now information can be available almost literally for free and instantly, to anywhere. If the institutional inertia of libraries didn't exist today, would they really be invented as they are?
The modern plutocrat is mostly a strictly transactional affair, who has dumbed business down to resource extraction.
I became involved in my city's library system a few years ago when they did a branch expansion that I was initially opposed to for money reasons. I flipped and am now a library fan.
I discovered that it's an environment for learning, social interaction and collaboration. You have programs for little kids where they interact with books for the first time. The elementary kids start collaborating on computers and doing other programs. Older kids are building robots, reading manga, having fun in a meaningful, beneficial way.
The failed promise of the internet that I bought into in the 90s is that access to information will set you free. Yet we find ourselves dominated by propaganda via things like Facebook -- Internet is the new TV. The reality is that information in the context of a meaningful environment is the magic. The library adds value and context to information. It's a situation where the value is greater than the sum of the parts.
Would you count Project Gutenberg, archive.org or SciHub? I'd also add Bittorrent and other p2p networks as media libraries. I bet there is plenty of lesser known archives like http://web.textfiles.com/
But what you get on HN is curation, and a community of like minded people. The library is that in physical form, available to everyone.
They did reinvent them, but in the spirit of the times they're mostly located in neighborhoods that are already more educated, more wealthy, and already have public library access.
https://www.treehugger.com/culture/little-free-libraries-rai...
I have one and that idea seems insane to me. The book box to me is a nice landscaping feature, a place to drink coffee with my neighbors, a signal about my politics, a way for us to unload books & my attempt to get rad comics to school kids. I’d never correlate it to a public lending library.
In the face of funding declines for libraries, it also doesn't seem very ridiculous for someone to suggest. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/ameri...
Also as an aside, if you are thinking about doing a book box there is no need to give the littlefreelibrary organization money. You can just put one up.
A more pertinent link: https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2018/01/02/question-li...
> But Hale and Schmidt point to at least one place where Little Free Libraries are seen as a substitute for true public library services. When budget cuts caused the El Paso (Tex.) Public Library to implement a $50 annual fee for nonresidents to use the library system, the tiny town of nearby Vinton came up with a plan: five Little Free Libraries spread around the community. The town would build them, and keeping them stocked with books would be up to the people of Vinton themselves.
> When Detroit Public Library (DPL) closed its Gabriel Richard branch in 2011, 4th graders at a local elementary school installed a colorful painted bookcase and a sign reading “Outdoor Library” in front of the shuttered building. It was one of four libraries to close that year—two have since reopened, though only two to three days a week.
I see the argument could be made. I’m wondering how often it is.
And I’d be shocked if it was ever made by people who are housing book boxes. Quite the opposite I’d bet they were generally strong proponents of public libraries.
Given that libraries are largely funded locally, should they not have existed, we would be seeking out the creation of more shared public spaces that don't require you to spend money to spend time there. These sorts of 3rd places are important, although I do agree that the modern plutocrat isn't the sort of person who is likely very safe when it comes to visiting these sorts of public spaces, and hence have an aversion to them.
If libraries didn't already exist, I can't imagine the copyright lobby allowing them to be invented.
Libraries legally own the material they lend out, and have the legal right to lend it. They exist because of copyright law, not in spite of it.
And if the "copyright lobby" (whatever that is) was so powerful, there are any number of things they could have stopped, like VCRs or photocopiers or even the internet itself.
> Just this week, a woman stopped by our desk because she needed to be taught how to open a new tab in an internet browser. She returned a few minutes later and said, “Please write ‘stomach ache’ on this piece of paper for me. I don’t know to spell it.” The man waiting behind her had no idea how to open an internet browser to begin his first job search in years. I walked him through the process and helped him get to a job site. This was a few minutes of a 40-hour workweek.
> I can’t imagine where this woman and this man would go without the library. Would Amazon really be willing to help them with all of their needs free of charge?
Information is available “almost literally for free and instantly” to people who can afford a device that connects to the internet.
... and who have a sufficient working knowledge of how computers and the internet work in order to take advantage of that information.
In line with what you and others have said, what I've observed at the libraries I've been to is that the people who get the most value out of libraries are the people that would otherwise be left behind by technology. I don't think that's something we can or should dismiss out of hand just because I/we don't personally get a lot of value from them. That is, unless we want to develop an underclass of people shut out from the rest of society.
Immersed as we are in it, I think people forget that the internet is a skill. Finding things and filtering the results is the result of experience.
There's nothing improved about the argument, it's just obfuscated better.
No. The internet almost always costs the individual money to access, unlike public libraries. That means the internet is less accessible to low income people.
Also public libraries have evolved into one of the main ways that many people access the internet. It's foolish to advocate replacing public libraries with something that the public libraries actually provide for many of their patrons.
Free: Transportation to go to your library (2x train ticket, or car + gas): minimum ~$5 / day so $60 a month, plus library card if not free
Instantly: ~30 minutes to go, 30 minutes to get back home, depending on where you live. Worst internet connection need a few seconds.
Anywhere: you have to physically go to the one library and hope you find the book you're looking for. Nowadays you have internet access pretty much anywhere.
so sure, that sucked in comparison, but no one was monetizing my activity. i didn't have to struggle against a suggestion machine that had decided I was in a different field. no one was showing me advertisements.
no question that digitizing and indexing the worlds information has been a huge benefit, but there isn't any fundamental reason why we had to invite all these sleezy business people into our lives in exchange. they just latched onto a new thing, seeped into any available crack, and presented themselves as part of the package.
a post internet library would be global, noncommercial, unfettered access to as many resources possible (hi Brewster).
My first comment was just about cost and (spatial/temporal) availability, in response to the parent.
The main city library is like a 10 minute walk -- though I don't like to walk so I ride my bike when I want to go up there. Costs me zero dollars to get there and library cards are free for everyone in the county.
Admittedly...I chose to live not in the suburbs so pretty much everything I need is a bike ride away.
A homeless person won't have an internet connection or a computer.
A poor person won't necessarily have a computer.
Internet in some rural areas is not just slow, but also spotty.
For the large majority of people (95%+), as per my last message, the library is not always preferable in terms of cost, distance and availability, that's all. There are reasons most people don't go. But for some, libraries are still relevant. Please notice that I never said the libraries are useless.
Even a poor rural person, usually working a lot and living far from a city center, might not have the time nor the financial resources to often go to the library.
Also, I've seen homeless people with a cheap tablet in NYC streets using the Link NYC hotspots [1] for free charging and WiFi.
It's also kind of sad that this logic is so prevalent with regards to software, films, music, etc.
Children's books would not exist with libraries. You'd probably find that without the library most of the deeper catalog for publishers would not be viable.
(Also, I'm pretty sure publishers know this, and I don't think anyone of them have made serious arguments against libraries. It's digital media and its zero-cost reproduction that gives everyone fits.)
Even for popular books, it drives demand. You can wait 8 weeks to read the latest James Patterson, or buy it now. But would you buy the previous books in the series @ $20/ea?
Our economic system is fundamentally broken, in that we need to give creators more financial support. Throwing our books into our current Intellectual Property mess isn't going to fix that, just like it hasn't really fixed that for other media for the past 20 years.
We need to bring non-library media closer towards the library model, rather than the reverse.
Not in any sense of the word. I'm rebuking the post's idea that those things shouldn't be focused on making money.
When information is free having somewhere to study that information, that isn't your shared apartment, becomes more important. Having somewhere to meet people to talk about the information, that isn't a crowded coffee shop, becomes more important. Having the expertise to find the right information, that isn't necessarily blog posts nor research pappers, again becomes more important.
Libraries are only useless to the extent that they haven't expanded. But in line with the resource curse it ends up being more lucrative to work in information technology rather than with information technology. So while many other industries are struggling the large tech companies are making bank by being part of the problem.
Libraries were formed to share very expensive printed books in a common space. Over the centuries, books and information became very cheap, and now mostly the common space remains.
It certainly has real value. Do we need to keep the pretense of the books as the real purpose for it?
That said, access to books is still a vital service. Not all printed publications are cheap, and not all books can be replaced by Wikipedia (even if you completely ignore fiction, as that argument does by necessity).
Max Headroom, episode ABC.1.3 "Body Bags":
Paula: "...what's that?"
Blank Reg: "It's a book!"
Paula: "Well, what's that?"
Blank Reg: "It's a non-volatile storage medium.
It's very rare. You should have one."
Books still work when the power goes out or the copyright cartels revoke - intentionally or not - your ereader's license. Widespread preservation of knowledge on non-volatile media is protection against future problems.
Libraries also gave net access for those without.
They probably wouldn't be invented as they are, but given those groups without access I would want them to be.
It's possible that libraries are the best way to do that but it's also possible that there are other, better ways.
And they still have books.
It's embarrassing to admit that, but it's the truth.
Brilliant. I foolishly bought some books recently. Where can I read them for free instead, apart from the library? Is this going to involve piracy? I'm not sure I'm really into that.
I'd love to see digital archives of all the books ever written, but we're not there yet.
Nevermind the fact that reading a physical book avoids much of the issues with blue light that screens produce
Please be aware of the distinction between public libraries (as is the general semantic implication when speaking of ”libraries”) serving the whole of the public; national libraries serving the whole of the public, creating systems for the retrieval of information and preserving the cultural memory of the world together with museums and archives; school libraries serving childrens’ and youths’ education; research libraries serving students, scientists, researchers and professionals in, for example, law, medicine, health sciences, industrial research on conducting research, referencing and preserving research data; hospital libraries serving the physically and mentally ill and disabled; and special libraries serving domain-based interests of for example artists, industry professionals and cultural institutions.
Also be aware of the fact that Library and Information Science as a scientific multidisciplinary field researches topics such as information theory, machine learning, cultural heritage, sociology, linguistics, comparative literature, knowledge organization, information retrieval, computer science, pedagogy, critical theory, didactics.
I also suggest a systematic literature study on the term ”information literacy”.
They are really community centers and in my view well worth it.
Oh. Right. That'd be the library.
And the steelman is a bit weak in its limbs - you could certainly make the argument that the point of original libraries wasn't the scarcity issue, but the discoverability issue. ("Just travel to Alexandria" is almost certainly not significantly cheaper than paying a scribe to create a copy)
We could also argue that they're the precursors of modern universities, because they offered a central place for scholars to gather.
Both - building a community, and making knowledge more discoverable - are still major purposes for today's libraries. (If you thought searching the Internet for info is helpful, try a librarian)
In a different timeline, libraries might not be buildings full of books, but there'd still be a purpose for librarians.
Many libraries loan out ebooks!!! It’s very convenient and free.
The "I'm alright jack" mentality
This doesn't at all capture what libraries actually do but the argument that we could be doing information access better and cheaper really just comes down to how the numbers come out.
If all you have is this library and time, you could pick up an instrument, learn how to play it, record a weekly podcast/vlog with your progress, edit the video, upload it to Youtube, and design your own artwork. Don't know how to do one of these things? Go pick up a book on it. You can launch an entire career for almost nothing. I'd like to see Amazon do that.
I bring this specific case because, to me, it's an example of all a public library can be when we consider them a public service rather than a burden.
Libraries and the services they offer can be an instrument for people to bring themselves out of poverty and for people to be able to grow and advance through education.
I personally think of it like this - if I didn't have a job, where would I "go to work every day"? If I didn't have an income, and I couldn't get a job, I could go to a library. And a library could be the key to me finding a job, or work, or making it for myself.
A library is a positive place to go with something to do, when otherwise, maybe I would have nothing, which can help me.
My personal desire is not to disrupt libraries, but instead the opposite - to actually extend what they do until it gives even more people a chance to start their own business, find their own careers, or simply learn and educate themselves for work or pleasure.
Lest we forget, that library science is the foundation of information science!
We are bullish on libraries. However, libraries have to keep updating their services and offer community engagement services.
I hope you find the employment you are looking for. And I hope she does as well.
Wish her all the best! :)
>My assumption is they shelve books, maybe make recommendations, and hold weekly community events? And nowadays, help with social services like helping people create resumes and what not?
Replying to mehblahwhatevs comment which does not have a reply link
No offense taken. The ALA (American Library Association) and libraries have deemed a Master required for as long as I can remember. In community settings, a Masters may not provide that much benefit, other than in getting the job. In academic settings, a Masters helps with taxonomy and other data classification issues and more. Reference librarians face sometimes challenging research problems. Digital librarians need exposure and some practice to tools and techniques. While a Masters does not guarantee that exposure and also that experience can be gained without schooling, libraries seem to like (as in require) the stamp of approval.
It's hard to make a proper living as a librarian when you have to get what is typically a liberal arts UG degree ($$) and a Masters ($$) for jobs that start at the low to mid $40s (US). Crazy huh? My daughter is lucky, her UG degree was 100% free other than room and board, she got in-state tuition for her Masters (VA to FLA because of an agreement that schools have) and earned some significant scholarship $ at Fla State. So her ROI will be more favorable than many other newly minted librarians.
What exactly do they do that requires knowledge?
My assumption is they shelve books, maybe make recommendations, and hold weekly community events? And nowadays, help with social services like helping people create resumes and what not?
No kidding. One of the best(worst) ways wars were waged in the past were to burn the libraries. Without knowledge, a civilization quickly suffocates.
I don't think many would argue against, lending knowledge and technology as a way to help poor countries, rather than just giving them raw cash.
Citation needed.
https://www.bls.gov/emp/chart-unemployment-earnings-educatio...
The value in terms of other benefits (which save financially and in other, more difficult to measure ways) is also pretty clear:
https://eml.berkeley.edu/~moretti/lm46.pdf
That's the end of the free research I'll do to prove you wrong, because frankly, it's extremely obvious to me and everyone else here that you're a troll and education is valuable to society and has a positive return on investment. Use google yourself, do a thorough investigation, or you aren't worth a damn.
It also occurs to me that you don't understand the meaning of the word "invaluable". Here's help: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/invaluable
In Germany, the plurality of kids finish school at Grade 10. Does it make our economy better and more competitive that we make kids endure school through Grade 12, and now are increasingly pushing them to do it through Grade 16? Or is it just a zero sum game?
Libraries allow for all types of education, not just institutionalized education. This helps facilitate learning. I shouldn't have to provide you any stats that show that gleaning wisdom from the past attempts of others can result in learning. And to cut through the web of semantic bullshit you are building here, learning is absolutely invaluable.
Oh boy, I guess I'm the one who has to tell you that causality can't actually be proven with regards to real events ever, and that correlation and repeated experiments don't conclusively prove anything, they just give us some very good authority with which to make a claim. Correlation doesn't prove causation, but it can suggest it very strongly.
And again, here you are arguing about university education in a discussion about libraries.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/976932046638538752.html
It's written by an education economist as a response to Bryan Caplan's recent book and I think it'll help give a basic notion of what people in the field think (and some understanding of the research.)
I also think a definition of 'invaluable' as 'unable to be valued' instead of 'infinite value' is necessary here. I see in another comment you've commented that opportunities shouldn't be locked behind golden gates. Even those of us who think education has a high value agree with that!
Furthermore the original comment mentions education and information. Surely you agree that information has value. But if I sat down and tried to read one of your amicus briefs it'd probably be difficult for me to understand and I'd almost certainly miss important details. So how do you learn to understand them? Education.
>Does it make our economy better and more competitive that we make kids endure school through Grade 12, and now are increasingly pushing them to do it through Grade 16? Or is it just a zero sum game?
I'm gonna quote from that link above.
In fact, signaling almost certainly is productive. Sure, in the simplest signaling model where there's only one job, education signaling is zero-sum (if you get ahead it's at the expense of others). But as soon as you introduce multiple, different, occupations, that changes! For a basic example of this, say you have two occupations, each with room to employ half the population, "Simple" and "Complex." In Simple, everyone produces 1. In Complex, smarties (half the pop) produce 4 and everyone else produces 0. In extreme-land where there's no signaling, people are basically assigned to jobs randomly, everyone gets paid a wage of 1, and average production is .51 + .5(.54+.50) = 1.5.
Now introduce a completely wasteful, no-HC education signal. Ed is free for smarties, but it costs 3 for everyone else because they'd have to hire tutors. Now, employers know who the smarties are, and they all get Complex jobs. Others get Simple jobs. Production is .51 + .5(4) = 3. Smarties get a wage of 4 and others get a wage of 1. Others don't bother going to school - they'd get a wage bump of 3 but they'd spend it all on school anyway, so why bother?
Here, signaling alone doubled production (this approach is generally called "matching"). There's a reason we call signaling outcomes the "second-best" outcome in game theory, and not "the really awful outcome" - because it can increase efficiency over NOT having the signal.
All of which is to say that education is some part signaling, some part development and mostly made up of parts that are impossible to distinguish between the two with current research methods. But even considering that it's still not a zero-sum game. And all of this is only considering the narrow range of economistic thinking about education, once you go from the frame of educating workers to educating citizens it gets even more important (and even more tangled.)
>The BLS chart shows correlation, not causation.
I mean this is almost philosophical but how would you ever distinguish actual causation there? I got involved in a thread here the other day about distinguishing environmental from genetic effects and the basic answer there was that researchers currently aren't able to distinguish certain effects. I suspect the answer here is similar
The former is valuable. The latter is worse than uninteresting.
Ask a librarian.
I should come clean, I'm also a university employee. I do agree with you that we require too much formal education in many cases, and would add that the financial cost of university education in the US is outrageous. However, education, independent of universities, clearly has great value. Libraries in particular are very cheap; a single library can service many thousands of people with only a few employees.
Personally, I'd like to see industry embrace educational resources like Coursera, so we can move away from the expensive, often predatory university model that locks many fields behind golden gates.
This is probably the best hint that they might not be so useful. The truth is most people never go to libraries.
This is one of the busiest library systems in the country, but shows that, at least within a local region, libraries may be heavily used.
[1] https://kcls.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2018/03/2017-Ye...
The truth is, most people don't go to _any_ single place. A lot of people frequent libraries, but they're probably not in the same socioeconomic place as you. When you wrote that last sentence, did you stop to think that maybe you don't really know what you're talking about?
You know nothing about libraries. Go to one.
>> This is probably the best hint that they might not be so useful. The truth is most people never go to libraries.
> "Most people," huh? Got a source for that?
His real name must be "Most People" and what he said is entirely an anecdote describing his own personal habits and preferences.
Just this week, they bought more property adjacent to the building because the new library is running out of parking.
That's a lot of people not going to a library. :)
Perhaps, but most* people would benefit from doing so.
* >= 50%