[carlosjobim]

If you live somewhere without internet access, you aren't living anywhere near a decent physical library. There are many countries in the world that only have one large library, and it's located in the capital. Shadow libraries increases access for people in such a scale that it is beyond comparison. You can get any book you need at any time of the day, without waiting or going anywhere. If I didn't have access to shadow libraries I wouldn't be able to get a hold of the majority of the books I've read in the past years. Not even by paying.

With that fact, I see it difficult to motivate why money should be wasted on physical libraries in any larger extent. You mention other services in the libraries that go strictly beyond the purpose of a library. That's nice when somebody else is forced to pay for it, but I fully understand why politicians want to cut that from a budget. If the government was giving free Harley Davidsson-rides to the public, I'm sure a ton of people would love it as much as many people love the libraries, but it isn't justifiable to spend tax payer money that way.

I also loved sitting in the library and reading a magazine while waiting for the bus, but the money spent on libraries would be much better spent giving every child a Kindle. That gives access to books to so many more people, who would frankly not have been able to have access to them otherwise.

[itishappy]

I had an internet connection at my apartment, I just lacked a smartphone or laptop. (It was actually kinda nice.) I met a surprising number of people in a similar situation.

> You mention other services in the libraries that go strictly beyond the purpose of a library.

Your purpose. Many others use them for different purposes. Growing up, mine had sports fields that were always in use and the best sledding area!

The American Library Association says each library decides it's own purpose.[0] Many, such as the city library near me, are choosing to become community centers attempting to provide a third place. I'd argue this has value the internet cannot replace.

[0] https://www.ala.org/tools/challengesupport/selectionpolicyto...

[carlosjobim]

> I had an internet connection at my apartment, I just lacked a smartphone or laptop.

I think we're talking past each other a little. When I mentioned places without internet coverage, I mean rural places where you just can't get internet. If you live in the city, you can always get online if you really want it, even by borrowing from a friend. Compare that to places outside the big metropolitan cities, where information access was impossible before the internet, because they would at most have a tiny library with little to offer. The internet was an enormous revolution in rural communities, I lived to see it. That was in the 90s, and now the shadow libraries have made physical libraries obsolete.

Shadow libraries and eInk readers have done a thousand times more to give people access to books and information, than all physical libraries combined. That's why I don't think there's any future for physical libraries.

> Your purpose. Many others use them for different purposes.

I think if you ask anybody what a library is for, they'll say for reading and borrowing books. The money being plowed into libraries could be used for subsidizing e-readers and that would give better information access to millions of people, instead of a few thousand of people living in the right place to enjoy good physical libraries.

> The American Library Association says each library decides it's own purpose.

And the politicians deciding the budgets decide if they want to pay for that.

> Many, such as the city library near me, are choosing to become community centers attempting to provide a third place. I'd argue this has value the internet cannot replace.

Completely agree, but they shouldn't really be called libraries by that point.