Removing Books From Libraries Often Takes Debate. But There’s a Quieter Way.
Removing Books From Libraries Often Takes Debate. But There’s a Quieter Way.
Weeding, or culling old, damaged or outdated books, is standard practice in libraries. But in some cases it is being used to remove books because of the viewpoint they express.
Here's an archive.is link for those who need it.
TLDR: people are damaging books they want removed from the library. These books are pulled from circulation as part of a process called “weeding”.
But when books are weeded, a fresh copy is ordered to replace it. So this vandalism isn’t really accomplishing anything.
Might work with books copies of which can no longer be obtained. Besides, vandalism as a vigilantism looks pretty poor stance to me
Edit: now that I gave it more thought, vandalism is sometimes the only way to express oppressed views. But I am against specifically secretly damaging communal books
If the same books are constantly getting destroyed, the library may consider no longer replacing them in order to avoid the cost.
archive.is is in a walled-garden of its own. For a while the best way to reach NY times content was on their onion host:
https://www.nytimesn7cgmftshazwhfgzm37qxb44r64ytbb2dj3x62d2lljsciiyd.onion/
but now they have enshitified the onion. Normally archive.org is the free world way to reach jailed content. But today archive.org is under attack.
The next best port of call is normally 12ft.io, but NYT has managed to sabotage them too. At this point the only just, egalitarian and inclusive way to discuss NYT content is to either copy the NY Times text into your post, or don’t share that content at all.
Oh, cyberpunk librarian. Nice podcast, listened to about 10 eps so far.
Glad you enjoyed it! I need to look into other hosting solutions since the attack on the Internet Archive, but I'll get to that soon. Heck, I've got enough to do right now! 😄