[apparent]

Some of the services end up being very expensive, like ebook lending. Some publishers basically charge libraries per loan ($X for an ebook that lasts Y loans), so while it is nice for residents it's not clear that it's a good value, or that it's a good use of tax money.

I once heard from a knowledgeable source that most of library lending is bodice rippers. These are available from Amazon/etc. pretty cheaply, which undercuts the value argument. And of course, there's practically no social value of providing the public with free bodice rippers...

I'd be interested to know more about the economics of lending DVDs and Blu-rays. Hopefully libraries get a better deal on these.

[triceratops]

> And of course, there's practically no social value of providing the public with free bodice rippers...

Why not?

> Some of the services end up being very expensive, like ebook lending

We need something like a first-sale doctrine for electronic media. Blockchains would be ideal for tracking ownership.

[apparent]

If most of lending were made up of educational texts, there would be a social value. Some people describe bodice rippers as porn for women, and people get addicted to them in the same way they get addicted to porn.

Would a library ever lend porn out? I'm guessing no, because of the lack of social value. To the extent that bodice rippers are like porn, the same rationale would apply.

[IAmBroom]

And to the extent that those are two different things, your argument completely falls apart.

[apparent]

Nope, because even if bodice rippers are not pure porn, it's not clear why libraries should subsidize entertainment for patrons. I'm not saying it's a terrible use of taxpayer money, just disagreeing with OP who said it's "such a great use of tax money". It does not bring people together, educate them, or provide for the common defense. Why not have movie theaters be government-run? It would make as much sense as providing free smut-adjacent books for (almost entirely) women.