Should public #libraries be defunded if they operate in an exclusive way?
For example, suppose a #library offers Wi-Fi exclusively to demographics of people who carry a mobile phone by forcing an SMS-verified captive portal, and they have no day pass or alternative way for people without phones to access Wi-Fi. Yet they receive public money despite the exclusion. Should the be defunded?
@pollbot@botsin.space @askfedi@a.gup.pe
#poll #askfedi
[ ] yes, public money should only fund inclusive svcs
[ ] no, it’s okay for public svcs to exclude some ppl
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.