Yes, why provide free internet access to check their email and maybe get a reply to their job applications? Better keep them out of work /s
absolutely no reason to do this other than to make the lives of people without housing harder.
Publicly funded but not for the public.
And before anyone makes a comment about the unhoused probably not paying taxes … neither do any of the children or retirees who use the service every single day of the year.
We’ve pretty much just abandoned any concept of citizenship or civic responsibility…
It’s only getting turned off at night, not completely disallowing them from using it. I don’t see what the problem is. I can’t go and take out a book at 1am, I shouldn’t also be allowed to use their WiFi.
I live in a rural area without broadband access. Any quality broadband access. During the pandemic, kids sat in their parents’ cars (typically after they got home from work) to do their remote-learning homework in front of the public library to get free access to decent connection speeds AND access the library files electronically (for California check here https://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/ebooks-for-all/ - every state has an equivalent ). People, including kids, check out books (and periodicals) electronically 24/7.
Good lord. The pandemic shutdowns sucked for me (I have two kids myself), but the more I hear about other people’s experiences, the more I realize I really lucked out.
It was shocking to me just how prevalent lack of broadband is. I moved in with my in-laws in norcal midway through the pandemic and the only internet service choices were a 600Kbps DSL line or Verizon mobile hotspots at 3-5Mbps (which is a massive blessing in comparison). I worked remotely and would frequently have to drive to Target or a coffee shop in town to download anything. They aren’t even in that rural an area - there were houses about half a mile away with gigabit cable. The cable company wanted nearly $70,000 to build out a line.
Not exactly the same but similar… There’s 4 major providers who service my area, but only one of them extends down my block. So I can choose from DSL (which to be fair goes up to like 35 Mbps), but if I want higher, I’m vendor locked to Xfinity, who charges at least 2x the price of the local companies.
Ive asked several times, but they quote hundreds of thousands of dollars to trench fiber down my street, and it’s just not worth it.
Except, you know, there’s already fiber from Xfinity… They just wont share.
The physical cabling needs to be government owned and rented out to the companies, not exclusively owned by one single company. We’ll never have competitive pricing unless it’s nationalized infrastructure
Nearest Target to me is an hour away. I really thought our one local bank surely had wifi (no, of course a bank doesn’t have wifi, silly, security too big a risk, duh). It’s our little teeny 1930s public library or nothing. So this San Francisco story hit me square in the chops as something like that here would take away our only free access point. Why would anybody do that?!?
you could check out an ebook using their services if you had access to wifi
I can’t go and take out a book at 1am
I can. My library has online services like ebook rentals that can be accessed 24/7.
Exactly this. A housed, or unhoused person, can’t use the library 24/7, so why should there be an exception for Wi-Fi at night?
The reason the library isn’t open 24/7 is that it’s expensive to keep paying people to staff it for so many more hours, plus those are hours you’d have to pay even more because working at night sucks. The WiFi access point doesn’t have those issues. You can leave it on and help people for almost no money.
Right, they don’t close the library at night because they have some moral objection to people checking out books at 1AM, it’s just a question of how to allocate their resources. I believe some public libraries, such as Salt Lake City, are experimenting with staying open 24/7.
because it costs $0 and unhoused people deserve access to education and resources at night same as those who are housed and have their own wifi?
this isnt about the wifi anyway, it’s an attempt to chase homeless people out of populated areas bc rich people are scared to be confronted with the human cost of their actions.
you’re fucking disgusting. i wish you the worst things.
Not the person you are replying to, but that’s really uncalled for. It’s a difference of opinion and none of us are in the position of decision making for the San Francisco Public Library.
A better policy would be for the city to provide universal Wi-Fi access across the city, instead of putting the burden on one public entity in one part of the city.
To be fair, several of these responses have been pretty disgusting in their disregard for homeless people. Also, why is it “unhoused” now and not “homeless”. Seems like the semantics are something George Carlin would have fun with.
what people call you and how you’re referred to affects how you’re treated, directly. this is why propaganda works. i’d like to think carlin would understand that fucking around with marginalized groups trying to better their perception and situation is probably not super cool, and that it’d be much more chill to go after the powerful assholes doing the marginalizing. but who knows.
the word homeless has stigma attached thanks to movies, tv, politicians, news. unhoused drops alot of that stigma. removing that stigma is important in the interest of allowing people to feel empathy for those affected rather than fear. i still slip every now and again but the rationale makes sense and i’m trying to do better.
I’m guessing you’ve never seen the bit where Carlin goes from Shell Shocked -> Battle Fatigued -> Operational Exhaustion -> Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The whole thing about changing these terms is it tends to undermine the seriousness of the issues being discussed. And the marginalized people that are effected.
Why not? It cost them next to nothing to leave it on. It actually is more work to turn off and on the router every day. I don’t see why not being to check out books had to do with internet. Why does it have to be all or nothing?
I would guess all commercial routers and access points hae the option to automate something like that. So you only have to set it up once and it’s not really much work (unless something breaks)
Over/under on how many years out we are from the hunger games?
There are so many problems with this.
Far too many homeless people, there is so much wealth in this nation, there is no reason we cannot provide ample shelter. This probably is going to continue to become worse with the disproportionate wealth distribution and the continual increase in use or automation and AI.
Additionally, we should have broader access to wifi, specifically for those who are homeless and need access to online resources, so they can eventually no longer be homeless. Seems like a great federal program opportunity, if we actually want people to be able to recover from being homeless. No one is going to become homeless or stay homeless because of the badass government subsidized wifi.
This seems incredibly self perpetuating on the cities behalf. It’s like making places uncomfortable to sleep upon… Why not invest that money into someplace people can goto sleep and get the assistance they need to exist in society.
The problem unhoused people face is not nighttime library access it’s housing. We all know that the reason they’re shutting their wifi off at night is because while for some homeless people this wifi is a lifeline, for some others it’s where they get their porn or where they hang out to do drugs and browse the internet. But the fundamental problem remains the same, because they have no where to go home to, whether someone is fapping or connecting with helpful resources, it’s all done in public.
If you think turning off the wifi is going to stop people from masturbating…
I kind of took it the other way. If they think because I have a roof over my head I’m not watching porn and doing drugs, they would be very mistaken.
That’s exactly how I meant it! Lots of people watch porn and do drugs, it’s not a problem to watch porn in your own house. That’s why I’m saying the problem is housing. The solution isn’t allow people to watch porn and do drugs in public, it’s housing so they can do it in private like normal people.
Probably too tired of cleaning up human shit from around the library. This is SF we’re talking about. There’s literally a poop map
You’ve gotta think that these people would rather use a toilet. Is the public toilet situation in SF really that bad?
There are no public toilets in the vast majority of San Francisco.
Do you live in the states? I’ve never really been to a city where public restroom access is well advertised or even convenient. You’re expected to go inside places of business.
If you’re obviously homeless, ain’t no business letting you in there.
And yes, that’s a typical US tactic. Instead of public services, we give control over to private businesses. But it’s particularly bad in SF, worse than most cities.
Not quite to aggressive architecture levels of dickishness, but still.
it’s the exact same thing imo :(
Our local library, which is usually really great, started playing loud classical music at the entrance after hours to shoo away the unhoused. I’m glad they stopped doing that after a couple months; that’s lowered my usually-high opinion of them.
this is symptomatic of how genuinely subhuman American society at-large treats homeless people, even though it is trivial in American society to become homeless. one wrong bill, one bad week, or one day of being in the wrong place is enough–and yet it is completely accepted that something of that sort happening to you places you into a class unworthy of rights and basic services afforded to others. it’s absurd!
I am not American so I can’t claim to know about the causes of homelessness there, but I think this is because the homeless can generally be sorted into two categories. One is, as you mentioned, the people who unfortunately encountered financial trouble and lost their home. These people are legally homeless but usually invisible, because they move in with their friends and family or live in their car. They are generally able to financially provide for themselves and will eventually have a home again. Society is very empathetic to this group and there is a lot of support for them, but they’re not what people think of when homelessness is discussed.
The public perception of homelessness is the second type of visible and persistently homeless people, the ones you see on the streets. They suffer from mental disorders and drug addiction, so they lack a support network, cannot provide for themselves normally and will often turn to crime to survive. It’s not unexpected that people see this group as “assaults people in public”, “attracts crime”, “leaves trash and needles around” and lose empathy for them. Now I’m not an expert on this issue and this categorization is obviously a generalization, but it helps to understand why people hold certain perspectives in this debate.
this is less of a dichotomy than i think is described here, though: almost all people in the second category were at one point people in the first and end up there because the support described in the first category disappears. when you become homeless, that frequently means you lose almost everything–and it’s really, really hard to build up from nothing in modern society because the expectation is that you have money to survive, and there’s only so far people are willing to pay your way forward with that expectation.
(there’s also the reality that even if you have something, there’s only so long you can make that last without a job–and for a homeless person getting one can be functionally impossible, no matter how menial. housing is also catastrophically expensive, so even if they clear the job hurdle once they’re down, the housing one may be likewise impossible to clear. this treadmill is a big part of why so many people become visibly and persistently homeless)
I’ve been to places that had free municipal wifi, mostly at libraries and bus stops. It seems like a small service that is generally helpful to people without access to their own wifi. I think the better solution is to have more places with free wifi at night so people don’t have to congregate in the one small area.
There aren’t many places the unhoused are allowed to exist in public and cutting them off from essential services only makes it harder for them to better their situation.
to better their situation
Well, that is, assuming they want to. Some, definitely. Long term loiterers, not so sure.
People who are addicted or who have given up to that degree are less likely to want help if they think real life can only be totally miserable for them (like, “the world is unbearable, there’s nothing good left for me except [drug name here]”). Same reason people who are depressed turn to drinking. Making the lives of unsheltered people even worse, thus making drugs more appealing in comparison, is counterproductive. And the longer they’re stuck in that, the more that’ll just feel like what life is to them.
Maybe people who don’t want to, or don’t act like they want to, better their situation actually would if they could see any hope for it, and if the path looked more doable and less like scaling mount everest with a broken leg.
I think anybody can think of times they didn’t want to do something that would benefit them - clean a house, do their homework, go to work in the morning - and other times that the situation was different and so it was much easier to do.
So we should take away something that is necessary to someone helping themselves (have you tried to apply for a job or take a class without using the internet recently, it’s required), just because some people don’t care about living in squalor?
If all they are doing is “loitering” to use the internet, then they aren’t doing anything wrong. It sounds like the problem is simply the number of people and the neighbors didn’t approve. In that case, the truly win/win option is to provide greater access points to free wifi so people don’t have to congregate in one small area. This outcome only hurts people.
California wants to help the homeless but they also don’t want to pay for drug treatment, safe injection sites, or psychiatric centers.
California does, right wingers in California do not and they pay MASSIVE amounts of money for advertising campaigns to misrepresent drug treatment, safe injection sites, and psychiatric centers as free drugs and won’t somebody think of the children???
Do you want one of THOSE people to be getting help next door to you? Oh the horror! Don’t you know that junkies sneak off in the night, into your homes in order to stab your children with drug filled needles??? Do you have any idea what it’s like to be near a psychiatric center? I do. My brother’s nieces cousins uncle twice removed on her mother’s side told me that the crazies like to kidnap your children and vandalize your house.
Where did I put my pearls? I’m in desperate need of clutching them.
/Dripping Sarcasm Also source: I live in CA
Being honest, I kinda get it. Sure your building is for public use but just because its for public use doesn’t mean it’s a housing complex
housing complex? you’re equating people using wifi outside of a library at night with it being a housing complex?
this is just another effort by another city to chase unhoused people out of an area, rather than, oh i dunno, building a mother fucking housing complex.
your attitude is toxic and it disgusts me. we dont provide housing, and people like you complain and moan about unhoused folk to the point that we have cops chasing them around the city and no way for them to meaningfully interface with the rest of the world. fuck off.
What’s the reasoning there? Are people without houses not allowed to use the wifi during the day? Is there something bad that happens if you use the internet without a house at night?
Probably to discourage them loitering around the library at night. That’s the only rationale I can think of.
