• SmolderingSauna@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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…

    • Nooch@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      getting a “protect my property value” vibes from this policy. Governing systems should focus first on lifting up our most vulnerable, and people selling houses just isnt it.

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

      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.

      • SmolderingSauna@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • AttackBunny@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        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?

        • briellebouquet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          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.

          • Gaywallet (they/it)@beehaw.org
            shield
            M
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Please don’t attack and insult each other. Give the other user the benefit of doubt and assume good faith even if it comes alongside ignorance. You’re free to ask questions to get them to clarify their point if you think they’re spreading hate speech but please wait for unambiguous intolerance before launching off on someone 💜

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

              i’m like the barest thread away from homelessness. i don’t think it’s fair to tone police me down when people are expressing disgust about people in a position i’ll probably be in when i’m too old to pay my bills with unwanted subsistence sex work. when people are supporting measures designed to make life more hostile for people like that.

              people who express disgust about unhoused people, and believe it’s okay to throttle their already super limited access to society, are lost causes. that’s violent instigation against people who can’t defend themselves and these attitudes get. people. killed.

              it’s weird how even spaces on fedi require that you Politely and Respectfully Debate people who lead with genocidal intent. think about who was impolite or intolerant first. think about whether anything i said was “unprovoked.” anyway speaking of tolerance i have none for environments that aren’t safe for poor and unhoused folk and it’s, all things considered, unsurprising that a model based on reddit ended up being, predominantly, another That.

              best of luck and goodbye i guess. you can have the genocide people or you can have their victims but you can’t have both.