A book is also a device, just less complex. The proliferation of digital devices is widespread and resilient enough that needing one to access a book isn’t gatekeeping in itself. Especially since you don’t need a digital device to access a book, digital books aren’t stopping you from having physical ones.
But it is a convenient, versatile and affordable way to gain access to more books than any traditional library could hold.
No it’s not. By no stretch of imagination is a book a device. Physical books don’t require any extra purchases, and the information in them is inherent.
just go to the place that has book. Find book. read book. simple. A book isn’t a device. If i want to read something digitally, i need to have a device that is good to read.
Sure why not, just as long as you live next door to a vast library and it isn’t raining today, that could be a viable option. Or just keep a huge personal library in your own home. or…
If i want to read something digitally, i need to have a device that is good to read.
Not everyone lives in the suburbs or the US or both.
raining today
Umbrella, raincoat, your own vehicle, Uber
keep a huge personal library in your own home
I wish I had a 1000 sq ft space just to keep books.
ah… there ya go
But I need to have an e-ink device for this. Reading on LED Screens is not that great for eyes. E-readers have their place when you are traveling or something but not when you’re sitting at home. If you like them as your primary then great for you.
Nobody is saying digital libraries shouldn’t exist. They should co-exist. And most of the times it is not going to be the primary reading medium for the majority. Open P&L of any publisher and you will see (if they categorize) physical books still account to over 80-90% of their revenues. Physical libraries are the most affordable and recognizable way to access literature and knowledge.
Let’s be clear, I’m not going to argue against the worth of physical books. I love books, use my local library a lot, and don’t own an e-reader. I’m only disputing the assertion that the need for reading devices means digital books are gatekept. e-readers and the like are widespread, reasonably affordable, and likely to become more so. Digital books are also accessible by other (not so ideal for reading) devices, which are even more ubiquitous.
It’s like saying that physical books are gatekept by the need for a reading light.
Gatekeeping implies some exclusive access which is not generally available. Book knowledge was gatekept before the existence of public libraries, even more so before the printing press. Even now the accessiblility of physical books and libraries depends a lot on where you live. Digital information, by contrast, has become broadly available extremely quickly and will remain so.
A book is also a device, just less complex. The proliferation of digital devices is widespread and resilient enough that needing one to access a book isn’t gatekeeping in itself. Especially since you don’t need a digital device to access a book, digital books aren’t stopping you from having physical ones. But it is a convenient, versatile and affordable way to gain access to more books than any traditional library could hold.
No it’s not. By no stretch of imagination is a book a device. Physical books don’t require any extra purchases, and the information in them is inherent.
device noun de·vice di-ˈvīs
1 : something devised or contrived: such as
a(1) : a piece of equipment or a mechanism designed to serve a special purpose or perform a special function …
Are you honestly arguing that a book is a device like for instance a computer is? Or a mechanical lock is?
No it’s a device like a book is. It’s an invention people made to store text etc in a robust easily accessible form.
just go to the place that has book. Find book. read book. simple. A book isn’t a device. If i want to read something digitally, i need to have a device that is good to read.
Sure why not, just as long as you live next door to a vast library and it isn’t raining today, that could be a viable option. Or just keep a huge personal library in your own home. or…
ah… there ya go
Not everyone lives in the suburbs or the US or both.
Umbrella, raincoat, your own vehicle, Uber
I wish I had a 1000 sq ft space just to keep books.
But I need to have an e-ink device for this. Reading on LED Screens is not that great for eyes. E-readers have their place when you are traveling or something but not when you’re sitting at home. If you like them as your primary then great for you.
Nobody is saying digital libraries shouldn’t exist. They should co-exist. And most of the times it is not going to be the primary reading medium for the majority. Open P&L of any publisher and you will see (if they categorize) physical books still account to over 80-90% of their revenues. Physical libraries are the most affordable and recognizable way to access literature and knowledge.
Let’s be clear, I’m not going to argue against the worth of physical books. I love books, use my local library a lot, and don’t own an e-reader. I’m only disputing the assertion that the need for reading devices means digital books are gatekept. e-readers and the like are widespread, reasonably affordable, and likely to become more so. Digital books are also accessible by other (not so ideal for reading) devices, which are even more ubiquitous.
It’s like saying that physical books are gatekept by the need for a reading light.
Gatekeeping implies some exclusive access which is not generally available. Book knowledge was gatekept before the existence of public libraries, even more so before the printing press. Even now the accessiblility of physical books and libraries depends a lot on where you live. Digital information, by contrast, has become broadly available extremely quickly and will remain so.