• Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    We’ve had (mostly) librarians in charge of content curation since there were libraries and it’s mostly gone fine. Sometimes they would remove or censor some stuff they shouldn’t have, but much more often than not, they were the ones fighting tooth and nail AGAINST it.

    Librarians are much less likely to censor without any outside pressure AND much less likely to accept bribes or otherwise buckle under outside pressure.

    People who choose an important but low-paying career that they’re passionate about tend not to do a shitty job out of greed or to get attention. Unlike the far right demagogue politicians and PTA Karens who are there for greed and attention only.

    If you don’t want fascism, then you want to avoid consolidation of power.

    That’s not how it works, no. The way to avoid fascism is to keep power away from bigoted demagogues.

    While neither would be a good idea, it would be better for one qualified and dedicated librarian to make the content decisions for all of New England than for a hundred fascist demagogues making them for a Boston suburb.

    but I fear library staff being harassed.

    And you’re absolutely right to. That was already happening, though, and will keep happening until politicians get off their asses and codify a system of rules to prevent it or just tighten up enforcement of existing harassment laws.

    • Isoprenoid
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      What if we just choose a role who decides what is and isn’t harassment? Just like how Minnesota chose a role that decides what books should be banned.

      The way to avoid fascism is to keep power away from bigoted demagogues.

      And there are no librarians that are bigoted demagogues?