Against Little Free Libraries (2017) • Hacker News Board

Re: Against Little Free Libraries (2017)

#31

Post by sqrt17 » Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 4:24 PM UTC

Tomte wrote: post #14

hprotagonist wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Want to bet? Library budgets are on the front lines, and have been for decades.

They will not be cut because of LFL, but because some people don't think libraries are important. Those people may cite LFLs as a substitute, but I doubt even that.

The point being that calling a book exchange a "Little Free Library" introduces the term Library. Effectively, people are paying license fees to a company in the midwest because they want them to be a Little version of something they know, rather than its own thing.

Re: Against Little Free Libraries (2017)

#32

Post by LeonB » Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 4:25 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #15

LeonB wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably also puts you on their map.

Shouldn't this kind of data just be available in a generic service like Google search/maps instead?

Google maps is very far from generic.

Re: Against Little Free Libraries (2017)

#33

Post by JohnFen » Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 4:25 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #24

Tomte wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've finally come around to think that it's okay to throw books into paper collection. It feels wrong, viscerally. You do it hoping nobody is watching you. But that feeling is stupid. It's ecologically okay to recycle paper, and the books you're throwing away aren't one-of-a-kind. You're not depriving anyone of the book, they can lend it from a library or buy it themselves.

Right. Especially mass-market paperback fiction and the like. If the book is rare, or has deep sentimental value, keep it or pass it on to someone who will enjoy it. But "because I may read it (or read it again) someday" is not a good reason to keep them. And not every book needs to be donated or resold. If you don't want it, chances are very few others want it either.

> If you don't want it, chances are very few others want it either.

I don't think this is a good benchmark at all. It's a natural human tendency to think that we each are representative of "most people", but that's very often not actually true.

I prefer to donate unwanted books to the library, thrift shop, or used book store. Those organizations are in a better place to judge what most people want and what they don't.

Re: Against Little Free Libraries (2017)

#34

Post by dtornabene » Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 4:26 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #28

hprotagonist wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Want to bet? Library budgets are on the front lines, and have been for decades.

The people who build and use LFLs are the most likely to support a well-funded public library system, not the least likely. That's one of the key conceptual failings of the article.

whatever the motives of the people building them, they absolutely will be used by others as a means to attack a vital state service.

Re: Against Little Free Libraries (2017)

#35

Post by asark » Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 4:28 PM UTC

Causality1 wrote: post #7

"Little Free Libraries predominantly appear in medium- to high-income neighborhoods" Because they don't want them vandalized or raided. "registration fee of $40 to use the Little Free Library name." OK, legit criticism. The idea you can trademark a phrase as generic and descriptive as "Little Free library" is bullshit.

Yeah I imagine the key combo for getting a lot of LFLs in a neighborhood is low crime plus shit walkability. I mean if the nearest library's an easy walk away—or maybe even a half-decent used book store—the appeal's gotta drop. If, on the other hand, there's nothing to look at or do on a neighborhood walk but admire your neighbors' lawn-keeping skills, the appeal (and utility) of a few LFLs scattered around is way higher.

Re: Against Little Free Libraries (2017)

#36

Post by JohnFen » Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 4:28 PM UTC

LeonB wrote: post #13

Causality1 wrote: post #7

"Little Free Libraries predominantly appear in medium- to high-income neighborhoods" Because they don't want them vandalized or raided. "registration fee of $40 to use the Little Free Library name." OK, legit criticism. The idea you can trademark a phrase as generic and descriptive as "Little Free library" is bullshit.

It probably also puts you on their map.

The ones in my town tend to have a map attached to them showing you where the next closest ones are.

Re: Against Little Free Libraries (2017)

#37

Post by Mediterraneo10 » Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 4:30 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #15

LeonB wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably also puts you on their map.

Shouldn't this kind of data just be available in a generic service like Google search/maps instead?

Rather, shouldn’t it be available in OpenStreetMap? And OSM does indeed already have a way of tagging these little libraries.

Re: Against Little Free Libraries (2017)

#38

Post by Tomte » Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 4:32 PM UTC

fedorareis wrote: post #29

Tomte wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've finally come around to think that it's okay to throw books into paper collection. It feels wrong, viscerally. You do it hoping nobody is watching you. But that feeling is stupid. It's ecologically okay to recycle paper, and the books you're throwing away aren't one-of-a-kind. You're not depriving anyone of the book, they can lend it from a library or buy it themselves.

Personally my solution to this is either giving the books to a thrift store or donating it to the library. Then it at least has a chance of finding a new owner, but if not they can decide to recycle it.

Another solution is trying companies buying old media. I finally got rid of Lisp in Small Pieces, which I would never have worked through anyway and some other comparable book I cannot remember for double-digit Euros!

It's hit-and-miss, though. I see no rhyme and reason in which books they're interested in, and the prices.

Just the day before yesterday I took some cooking books in pristine condition to the library. They used to have a book-swapping box outside. It was gone.

I went in (not too thrilled with the prospect of lugging it all back home) and asked about it. No, they don't have it anymore. I can put my books in the "free section" inside.

I did that, the librarian walked by to take a look and snatched the books away. "They are good, I'll see whether we can use them for the library. Usually we only get books we throw away immediately."

Re: Against Little Free Libraries (2017)

#39

Post by lootsauce » Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 4:33 PM UTC

The quality of content, other than popular fiction which I care not to read, is horrendous at every community library I have browsed the stacks of. What the librarians decide we should like just seems not a good enough solution. Perhaps a more distributed model where people can bring their own books to share, silently hoping someone else will enjoy them, is far more interesting than that of government employees (regardless of their great intentions) deciding for us. Probably unrealistic but my $0.02

Re: Against Little Free Libraries (2017)

#40

Post by Gibbon1 » Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #16

Virtue signaling goes both ways. Yes, there's plenty of middle class progressive virtue signaling in having a little free library, but there's also plenty in bashing them as a threat to the public library system. Progressiver-than-thou is a seriously annoying thing. My own gripe against them isn't the virtue signaling, but rather the KonMari problem. People who read tend to treat books as sacred. Throwing books out i…

Seems to me you could take the trash Danielle Steele novels home and throw them out.