Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should physical libraries be digitized?
Libraries should stop having a physical presence and instead only exist digitally (i.e. online).
Digital books are easier to search within (for specific words or numbers) than physical books.
Digital books can be loaned to multiple people simultaneously. Physical books, on the other hand, can be on loan to only one person at a time.
Digital books are very portable.
Obtaining information would be easier for those who cannot physically access libraries.
Digital libraries would be more eco-friendly than physical libraries.
Libraries are getting
, so people will be able to access the libraries in a different place instead of not at all if their budgets get to a point where the libraries close.
Digital books have more interactive capabilities.
is a major concern for library goers.
Libraries act as equal access resources to the public, regardless of income. For people who don't have access to the internet or suitable electronic devices to use for books (like the poor or even recent refugees), they would lose out on equal access to them.
Many libraries are cultural icons and historical landmarks, so these would be lost (culturally among other methods) if they go away.
Print copies are physiologically better for our bodies than e-books.
People still go to them as a space (instead of for the books).
Books will no longer be a hard copy, so if the internet or the library's website goes down or loses the online copy, then there is no way to get it back.
would arise, as libraries need permission from publishers to stock digital copies of books, which could be withheld. Physical libraries have no such limitations, and will still need to be around to fill in digital gaps.
Jack Torrance is actually the hero of the book "The Shining"
Should Google Censor Their Search Results In Order To Operate In China?
Is Hamlet Mad?