People who can't afford a few hundred dollars for their own computer and the monthly bill for internet access? If you're looking at porn in the library, it's because you can't do it anywhere else, not because you're abusing tax dollars.
Would I like the poor, the disadvantaged, the isolated to be using the library resources my taxes pay for to advance their lives? Hell yeah. Am I going to begrudge them - let alone get pissed off about - them using it to do the things I can do on my phone, on my way to the well-paying job? Hell no.
It's not like it's encouranged. Be realistic. It's usually grounds for banning, and I doubt my library system was unique there.
See also: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=759069
Some people spent time on facebook, myspace, flash games, etc., but some people spend lots of time on Hacker News, too. Not sure what your point is, there. It's not like kids were allowed to sit playing flash games all day when people wanted computers for schoolwork (or whatever).
Because this is the internet, the above probably seems really snarky. It's meant to be a calm, civil anecdote to illustrate my point, but I apologize if it does seem hostile. In any case, I think preventing people from using their library computer time as they see fit 1) will result in upset users due to many false positives, 2) results in more ... "big-brother-ism", if you will, 3) will cost as much money as it saves.
I don't care if there's a nude painting on display, but I do care if there's some hard core humping on a computer monito in a public place where my child can see it... I mean he was just born, give him at least a few years innocence!
* At the library system I worked at, it was a matter of staff judgement.
When I said .1 cents I actually meant a small amount but not a trivial amount per paycheck multiplied by the tax paying population. So around 7 million per year. Not sure if that's significant enough, but it was just a figure off the top of my head meant to demonstrate that by paying a small amount individually we could help the issue.
Anyways, I've over-explained it now... but I felt like a douche when I checked my threads this morning.
Mainly, I just wanted to point out that it's a quintessential "Small Matter of Programming" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_matter_of_programming) issue in library policy, and people who have never worked for a library can easily underestimate the difficulty. My response was a bit over-bristly, though, sorry.
Didn't mean to say it was easy, jus worthwhile.
These are the places with a sign up in the windows that said "The FBI has not yet raided us," after all.
The problem is that you're presenting it as a class issue. Read it again:
> Glancing over the screens I could see a variety of pornographic images, facebook and myspace pages, and youtube. The library is a great resource, but I was completely pissed off that my tax dollars go to support that.
This is a bit different than an argument that they could cut down on 'probably a significant number' of computers if there was lower usage. The whole point of having a resource is to use it, so I'd argue that we should be trying to promote utilization anyway...
'surfing youtube' vs 'how it's intended to be used' is missing the forest for the trees: libraries are about disseminating information.
> Thus, modern libraries are increasingly being redefined as places to get unrestricted access to information in many formats and from many sources. They are extending services beyond the physical walls of a building, by providing material accessible by electronic means, and by providing the assistance of librarians in navigating and analyzing tremendous amounts of information with a variety of digital tools.
Calling someone else's argument asinine seems to be exactly what the guidelines specifically ask not to do. eg:
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3.""
Strangely enough, I often study at a public law library (where I am right now) and I occasionally see the staff kick someone out for misuse of the computers here, even though it's run by the county. Perhaps it's because there are only 6 of them and they're meant for accessing legal databases like Lexis/Nexis, not checking your facebook status. (I'm using my laptop, they probably wouldn't approve of me using HN on a library machine either!)
You really shouldn't watch porn on your phone while you drive. ;-)
But that is beside the point. Paying taxes does not give you the right to a) break the rules (surfing porn IS against the rules) and b) causes an environment that is not conducive to the intended use (i.e. a filthy environment that drives away legitimate users)
Is it just the vagrants watching porn that pisses you off? That's maybe caring too much about the topic, but it raises a fair point.
People breaking the rules is certainly a valid complaint. However, I'm not aware of libraries banning YouTube (if people are using headphones), Facebook, or whatnot.
And a lot of cigarette taxes and booze excise taxes. Really poor people pay a much larger proportion of their incomes in taxes.
Decide for yourself: Is this thread about viewing pornography in public places? Is this thread about _homeless_ or _too poor to pay for internet access in any way_ people looking at porn? Or are we seriously discussing about tax dollars being spent in a wrong way?
Disclaimer following: I'm not a US guy and I've never been there, but both based on extrapolation (looking at my country, guessing it's not that different over there) and some public media stunts I'd like to reset some expectations here.
Paying for library internet access and the machines there won't ruin your country, period. If the libraries are somewhat similar to ours, the machines are old/reused/will stay for years or are a gift of a local company. Internet is a given for most places anyway and doesn't cost more if you're not only using it behind the counter but offer a couple of public places to use it as well.
So in the end I think the "tax dollar" argument is moot. It's - with my limited understanding - completely bogus and just tries to reinforce a moral problem with the use of public workstations ("I don't like your use case _and btw I pay for that_"). Chances are, you're not. Not in any way worth mentioning. Had a donut or a coffee at Starbucks (bridging the gap back to the article again) recently? Chances are you paid a lot more than the amount of your taxes going into "funding for internet usage in libraries".
Seriously. This thread seems completely disconnected from reality and nothing but a "WAH!" in my book.
I've lived in 3 major cities, and I've only once seen what I would describe as unwarranted attention from the police directed the homeless. In fact, the majority of the time the police seem to completely ignore them, even when they're purposely making a scene. They know there's realistically nothing they can do, crazies will be crazy.
Not everyone in the library should have to read Shakespeare, ya know.
Tax dollars go on random, pointless crap pretty much most of the time, and to be honest if I had to choose between, say, paying for the govt to invade Iraq or paying for someone without a computer to view pornography or visit facebook, I would choose the latter without hesitation.
Its a shame you dont approve of how others utilise their available resources, but maybe you could discuss the issue without faux-outrage. Its a boring and (these days) over used means of communication.
That's not even considering the far thornier problem that porn filtering programs can often block legitimate web browsing, such as looking for information about sex education, safe sex, STD's etc.