• AttackBunny@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • chaos@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • AntennaRover@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • briellebouquet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Calcharger@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • sin_free_for_00_days@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • briellebouquet@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • sin_free_for_00_days@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.