Replace libraries with Amazon? Not if these librarians have anything to say about it.

In case you didn't know, libraries are cool as heck.

They've been around for — well — ever (or at least thousands of years), there are more than 17,000 of them in the U.S., and they serve a myriad of purposes beyond just access to an unlimited number of free books (which, let's be honest, is pretty great in itself). Nearly all libraries offer access to computers and Wi-Fi, and many serve double as venues for community events. Best yet, libraries can help people develop the tools they need to combat the spread of false stories on the internet and identify reputable sources of information.

Don't worry! No books were harmed in the making of this photo. Photo by Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images.


With all those awesome things about libraries, it's kind of mind-boggling that someone call for them to be replaced by Amazon.

Economics professor Panos Mourdoukoutas published a (since deleted) blog at Forbes on July 21 arguing for shutting down local libraries in favor of brick and mortar Amazon stores "in all communities." His argument centers around the idea that "third places" like Starbucks and affordable content-streaming options like Netflix and Amazon Prime have all but made libraries irrelevant.

He wrote:

"Amazon Books is a chain of bookstores that does what Amazon originally intended to do; replace the local bookstore. It improves on the bookstore model by adding online searches and coffee shops. Amazon Go basically combines a library with a Starbucks.

At the core, Amazon has provided something better than a local library without the tax fees. This is why Amazon should replace local libraries. The move would save taxpayers money and enhance the stockholder value of Amazon all in one fell swoop."

According to the American Library Association, Americans check out an average of eight books a year, which costs them an average of $36.96 in total taxes. As far as plans to "save taxpayers lots of money" go, this is a pretty huge dud.

Naturally, librarians weren't exactly thrilled about the idea.

Not to get too snarky here, but if you're planning to write an opinion article about why a private company should replace a public good, a librarian would be the perfect person to help with your research.

Many (correctly) said that the article's premise seemed to ignore the fact that there are millions of low-income individuals who rely on libraries. Replacing them with Amazon stores would take away their ability to apply for jobs, learn new skills, or just be able to read bedtime stories to their kids.

And not everyone has the cash to dish out for a Netflix account, either. A year of Netflix costs more than the average taxes that go to local libraries.

Plus, there's a community element that just can't be replaced by a for-profit company like Amazon. When the end goal is to make money versus to provide a service, events that don't help increase profits get cut.

The idea that physical books are some kind of relic of the past is simply false.

Some suggested that maybe, just maybe, the author hadn't actually visited a library in recent years.

And others reiterated this idea wouldn't actually save people who need libraries any money.

If there's a lesson to be learned here, it's that replacing public services with private ventures is a bad idea. That and don't piss off librarians.

Libraries are a lifeline to people of all income levels. Replacing it with something that would cater solely to middle and upper class families in order to save $40 a year won't exactly elicit a standing ovation from most people.

According to these tweeting librarians, it sure sounds like Mourdoukoutas didn't do his research. If only there were a place where he could go to read up on subjects he doesn't quite grasp...

OK, so this is a runway model during some sort of library-themed fashion show in 2015. Photo by Tristan Fewings/Getty Images.

Pexels / Julia M Cameron
True

In the last 20 years, the internet has become almost as essential as water or air. Every day, many of us wake up and check it for the news, sports, work, and social media. We log on from our phones, our computers, even our watches. It's a luxury so often taken for granted. With the COVID-19 pandemic, as many now work from home and children are going to school online, home access is a more critical service than ever before.

On the flip side, some 3.6 billion people live without affordable access to the internet. This digital divide — which has only widened over the past 20 years — has worsened wealth inequality within countries, divided developed and developing economies and intensified the global gender gap. It has allowed new billionaires to rise, and contributed to keeping billions of others in poverty.

In the US, lack of internet access at home prevents nearly one in five teens from finishing their homework. One third of households with school-age children and income below $30,000 don't have internet in their homes, with Black and Hispanic households particularly affected.

The United Nations is working to highlight the costs of the digital divide and to rapidly close it. In September 2019, for example, the UN's International Telecommunication Union and UNICEF launched Giga, an initiative aimed at connecting every school and every child to the internet by 2030.

Closing digital inequity gaps also remains a top priority for the UN Secretary-General. His office recently released a new Roadmap for Digital Cooperation. The UN Foundation has been supporting both this work, and the High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation co-chaired by Melinda Gates and Jack Ma, which made a series of recommendations to ensure all people are connected, respected, and protected in the digital age. Civil society, technologists and communications companies, such as Verizon, played a critical role in informing those consultations. In addition, the UN Foundation houses the Digital Impact Alliance (DIAL), which advances digital inclusion through streamlining technology, unlocking markets and accelerating digitally enabled services as it works to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

Keep Reading Show less

We Americans are an interesting bunch. We cherish our independence. We love our rugged individualism. Despite having pride in our system of government, we really don't like government telling us what to do.

Since rebellion is literally how we were founded, it's sort of baked into our national identity. But it doesn't always serve us well. Especially when we find ourselves in a global pandemic.

Individualism—at least the "I do what I want, when I want" idea—is the antithesis of what is needed to keep contagious disease under control. More than anything in my memory, the coronavirus pandemic has tested our nation's ability to put up a united front, and so far we are failing miserably.

I hear a lot of the same complaints from people who decry government mandates to wear a mask or governors' stay-at-home orders. We don't need a nanny state telling us what we can and can't do! This is tyranny! This is dictatorship! What ever happened to personal responsibility?

I actually have the same question. What did happen to personal responsibility?

Keep Reading Show less
True

This year, we've all experienced a little more stress and anxiety. This is especially true for youth facing homelessness, like Megan and Lionel. Enter Covenant House, an international organization that helps transform and save the lives of more than a million homeless, runaway, and trafficked young people.

Watch the full story:

Amazon is Delivering Smiles this holiday season by donating essential items and fulfilling AmazonSmile Charity Lists for organizations, like Covenant House, that have been impacted this year more than ever. Visit AmazonSmile Charity Lists to donate directly to a charity of your choice or simply shop smile.amazon.com and Amazon will donate a portion of the purchase price of eligible products to your selected charity.

Sometimes it seems like social media is too full of trolls and misinformation to justify its continued existence, but then something comes along that makes it all worth it.

Apparently, a song many of us have never heard of shot to the top of the charts in Italy in 1972 for the most intriguing reason. The song, written and performed by Adriano Celentano and is called "Prisencolinensinainciusol" which means...well, nothing. It's gibberish. In fact, the entire song is nonsense lyrics made to sound like English, and oddly, it does.

Occasionally, you can hear what sounds like a real word or phrase here and there—"eyes" and "color balls died" and "alright" a few times, for example—but it mostly just sounds like English without actually being English. It's like an auditory illusion and it does some super trippy things to your brain to listen to it.

Plus the video someone shared to go with it is fantastic. It's gone crazy viral because how could it not.

Keep Reading Show less
via Becker1999 / Flickr and Price and Sons

One of the major themes that arose out of World War II was how America's national character helped propel the Allies to victory over the Axis powers. Americans came together and sacrificed by either picking up a rifle and heading "over there" or on the homefront, they did whatever they could to help the war effort.

They bought bonds. They turned their businesses into factories. They rationed items such as meat, dairy, fruits, shortening, cars, firewood, and gasoline.

After living through nine months of COVID-19, one wonders whether today's Americans would be adult enough to make the sacrifices necessary to win such a war.

Keep Reading Show less