advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

Forbes suggested Amazon should replace libraries, and people aren’t having it

Forbes suggested Amazon should replace libraries, and people aren’t having it
[Photo: StockSnap/Pixabay]

Update: Monday, 1:23 p.m.:

advertisement

The Forbes article appears to have been deleted, as the link now leads to an error message.

Original post:

A Forbes contributor wrote a short piece titled “Amazon Should Replace Local Libraries to Save Taxpayers Money,” arguing that libraries should be shuttered in return for Amazon opening bookstores in local communities. At the gist of the writer’s argument is that Starbucks has replaced libraries as a friendly place to go and read and streaming services like Amazon Prime Video have replaced video rentals, which many local libraries had provided. And then:

“Of course, there’s Amazon Books to consider. Amazon have created their own online library that has made it easy for the masses to access both physical and digital copies of books. Amazon Books is a chain of bookstores that does what Amazon originally intended to do; replace the local bookstore. It improves on the bookstore model by adding online searches and coffee shops. Amazon Go basically combines a library with a Starbucks.”

Taken together, why should taxpayers keep paying money to fund local libraries, the writer argues:

“At the core, Amazon has provided something better than a local library without the tax fees. This is why Amazon should replace local libraries. The move would save taxpayers money and enhance the stockholder value of Amazon all in one fell swoop.”

And then Twitter came to the rescue:

advertisement
advertisement