[harryh]

Very misleading title. Should be changed.

This isn't about making libraries private and charging money to take out books or whatever. It's about municipalities hiring private companies to staff the libraries and manage day to day operations. This is still a topic worth talking about! But it doesn't mean that these libraries aren't remaining free and open to the public.

[lost-found]

> But it doesn't mean that these libraries aren't remaining free and open to the public.

For now.

[gruez]

but ultimately they're under contract from the city/county to provide library services? It's not like they can unilaterally add user charges. They still can if the city/county agrees, but that's still the case in the case of publicly run libraries.

[lost-found]

I don’t have much faith in the privatization of public services like this—see private prisons, private schools, etc.

[dantheman]

Private schools are far superior to public schools and often cost far less. Private prisons are almost a non issue - they're a minuscule amount. Take a look at what the California prison guard union does - advocating against criminal justice reform to maintain large # of inmates. I'm against private prisons, but don't let it crowd out the real issue which is public prisons.

[ineptech]

Doesn't seem misleading to me, your summary ("It's about municipalities hiring private companies to staff the libraries and manage day to day operations.") aligns with my understanding of what "privatize libraries" means.

[shukantpal]

Then your understanding is wrong