I like this idea.

Publishers have come hard on the Internet Archive, and by extension, on libraries that merely loan online copies of books limited to ones that they have bought [0]

No use in closing the physical libraries if books are unavailable to "borrow" online.

[0] Hachette vs. Internet Archive.

A court win against the Internet Archive has publishers celebrating, but what does it mean for the future of public libraries and digital access?

https://copyrightlately.com/as-publishers-beat-internet-arch...

I'm confused, what's wrong with physical libraries? I'm not poor and I go often.

Libraries are community centers in many cities and towns, and, to my own family offer much to pre-school learners in events and activities - friends are made during these events and enrich the community. Librarians offer personalized assistance to reading seekers, both to children and adults, and are a quiet haven for readers of all incomes. Library periodicals on offer can only be accessed online by paid subscription and the audio book offerings are great for those who prefer audio to reading, for whatever reason. No. Libraries offer something quite different than the internet, and communities would be diminished if they closed.

That said, the idea of funding home internet for the poor is an excellent idea, and should be entertained. I'd be for it.

No. In my experience, librarians actually care about privacy and freedom of speech, unlike any online platform. Being able to just walk into a building and read a physical book without being subject to psychological warfare or surveillance (beyond I suppose the database for checking in and checking out, which I doubt is connected to Palantir) is a low-tech freedom we shouldn't lightly abandon when technology more and more seems to serve the interests of fascists and capitalists rather than the end user.

Also if the argument is that libraries are turning into de facto homeless shelters... the problem there isn't the existence of libraries, it's the failure of society to provide shelter for the homeless. House the homeless and they won't be pissing in the libraries.

No, I want to bang my librarian.

Sure... what is more likely to occur is that the physical libraries are closed and then replaced with *poof* nothing.

There might be the promise of free home internet, but , darnit, the folks in charge just couldn't do that in a way that appeases broadband providers. I guess we'll all just have to make do with nothing. Again.

Closing physical libraries is a terrible idea. Funding home internet for the poor is a great idea. Don't conflate the two. We have more than enough resources for both.

Fund internet for the poor then we can talk.

Every initiative like this I can remember shuts down the good thing first, then reneges on the service that's supposed to replace it.

No, don’t close them. Libraries have become surprisingly useful of late. Need to 3D print something? No problem, probably cost you less than $1 at my local library. Like DND? Cool, they host two games a week. Feel like checking out some video games or board games? Got them too. Shoot, my local library even has kitchen equipment you can check out for free. And we just found out it offers free ABC Mouse subscriptions for up to 2nd grade.

People need internet these days, but getting rid of libraries would get rid of a lot more than just physical books.

The internet price is a problem exclusively in the US, at least in the developed world. Outside the US the internet isn't only a commodity, but its price also reflects that. In most of the world a monthly subscription with reasonable bandwidth and unlimited traffic starts at around the price of 2 or 3 packs of cigarettes.

Personal opinion, but public libraries shouldn't be closed to feed ISPs only because they managed to make the population believe that they are not ridiculously overcharged..