this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2023
170 points (100.0% liked)

World News

24483 readers
36 users here now

Breaking news from around the world.

News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


For US News, see the US News community.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SolNine@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There are so many problems with this.

Far too many homeless people, there is so much wealth in this nation, there is no reason we cannot provide ample shelter. This probably is going to continue to become worse with the disproportionate wealth distribution and the continual increase in use or automation and AI.

Additionally, we should have broader access to wifi, specifically for those who are homeless and need access to online resources, so they can eventually no longer be homeless. Seems like a great federal program opportunity, if we actually want people to be able to recover from being homeless. No one is going to become homeless or stay homeless because of the badass government subsidized wifi.

This seems incredibly self perpetuating on the cities behalf. It's like making places uncomfortable to sleep upon... Why not invest that money into someplace people can goto sleep and get the assistance they need to exist in society.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] b9chomps@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago

Yes, why provide free internet access to check their email and maybe get a reply to their job applications? Better keep them out of work /s

[–] blakerboy777@lemmy.one 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What's the reasoning there? Are people without houses not allowed to use the wifi during the day? Is there something bad that happens if you use the internet without a house at night?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DJDarren@beehaw.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What crime is being committed while unhoused folks are online? Cybercrime? Are they pretending to be Nigerian princes?

[–] Andreas@feddit.dk 0 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Read the article, the problem isn't their online activities but the wifi attracting them to cluster outside the library building. The residents don't want the homeless hanging around outside the library and turning off the wifi would reduce their incentive to be there.

[–] 10_dollar_banana@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Maybe instead of taking things away, we should be providing tax funded public wifi in more places. The internet isn't a luxury anymore, and those without homes still have a right to access it (yeah even at night).

[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

brilliant. it's practically a utility at this point; i hate going places and seeing weird shitty scam 'freeATTwifi' everywhere. public internet now.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] yunggwailo@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

classic nimby bs. what they dont realize of course is that getting rid of wifi isnt gonna stop them from congregating, theyll just congregate elsewhere

[–] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago

Which is the point. That's a win for the NIMBYs who got this policy enacted. It's literally no longer in their backyard.

[–] LilBiFurious@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

The actions of the library are cowardly and the justifications of the residents in the area are abhorrent. God forbid we do something to help those in need, let's just push them out of sight instead.

[–] alyaza@beehaw.org 0 points 2 years ago

The residents don’t want the homeless hanging around outside the library and turning off the wifi would reduce their incentive to be there.

i mean bluntly, sucks to be them? but get over it. homeless people are people too! the obvious solution is to provide them with social services first if this is the objection (which, to be clear, it generally isn't--it's that homeless people exist and aren't out of mind)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SmolderingSauna@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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...

[–] alottachairs@beehaw.org 0 points 2 years 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.

[–] Arbiter@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Yeah, what the fuck are we paying taxes for if not to help those who aren’t or can’t?

[–] Calcharger@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (12 children)

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.

[–] AttackBunny@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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@beehaw.org 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

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 💜

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Calcharger@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Not the person you are replying to, but that's really uncalled for. It's a difference of opinion and none of us are in the position of decision making for the San Francisco Public Library.

A better policy would be for the city to provide universal Wi-Fi access across the city, instead of putting the burden on one public entity in one part of the city.

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@lemmy.one 0 points 2 years ago (7 children)

To be fair, several of these responses have been pretty disgusting in their disregard for homeless people. Also, why is it "unhoused" now and not "homeless". Seems like the semantics are something George Carlin would have fun with.

[–] Calcharger@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what their preferred would be. Homeless, unsheltered, unhoused, I guess it would be important to find out from them. Homeless might be a misnomer as some of them may find that anywhere is their home? Not sure, not my space

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] StrayPizza@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (6 children)

I was with you until the end there. Really uncalled for to call someone disgusting and wish harm upon them because they have a different opinion than yours.

If you read the article, it’s not about rich people seeing homeless folks, it’s about vandalism and open drug use on the sidewalks. You don’t have to be rich or white to feel uneasy while stepping over bodies sprawled out on the sidewalk or walking by human waste and needles in the bushes the next morning.

Perhaps there’s a middle ground like keeping the Wi-Fi on but requiring login with a (free) library card.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] yunggwailo@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago

you could check out an ebook using their services if you had access to wifi

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] alyaza@beehaw.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

this is symptomatic of how genuinely subhuman American society at-large treats homeless people, even though it is trivial in American society to become homeless. one wrong bill, one bad week, or one day of being in the wrong place is enough--and yet it is completely accepted that something of that sort happening to you places you into a class unworthy of rights and basic services afforded to others. it's absurd!

[–] Andreas@feddit.dk 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I am not American so I can't claim to know about the causes of homelessness there, but I think this is because the homeless can generally be sorted into two categories. One is, as you mentioned, the people who unfortunately encountered financial trouble and lost their home. These people are legally homeless but usually invisible, because they move in with their friends and family or live in their car. They are generally able to financially provide for themselves and will eventually have a home again. Society is very empathetic to this group and there is a lot of support for them, but they're not what people think of when homelessness is discussed.

The public perception of homelessness is the second type of visible and persistently homeless people, the ones you see on the streets. They suffer from mental disorders and drug addiction, so they lack a support network, cannot provide for themselves normally and will often turn to crime to survive. It's not unexpected that people see this group as "assaults people in public", "attracts crime", "leaves trash and needles around" and lose empathy for them. Now I'm not an expert on this issue and this categorization is obviously a generalization, but it helps to understand why people hold certain perspectives in this debate.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

For all those times I was going to commit a crime, but the WiFi was out.

[–] anthoniix@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago
[–] Catch42@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The problem unhoused people face is not nighttime library access it's housing. We all know that the reason they're shutting their wifi off at night is because while for some homeless people this wifi is a lifeline, for some others it's where they get their porn or where they hang out to do drugs and browse the internet. But the fundamental problem remains the same, because they have no where to go home to, whether someone is fapping or connecting with helpful resources, it's all done in public.

[–] gormster@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

If you think turning off the wifi is going to stop people from masturbating…

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] briellebouquet@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago

they're doing it because rich people are scared of unhoused people and want them to disappear or die. no wifi means unhoused people wont hang out around the library means rich people in the area will see fewer unhoused people

it's revolting and it's violent. people die when homeless people get bullied out of spaces and harassed by cops.

[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

nothing drives me more insane than artificial restrictions placed on digital technology that could otherwise be infinitely helpful

[–] indite@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Being honest, I kinda get it. Sure your building is for public use but just because its for public use doesn't mean it's a housing complex

[–] briellebouquet@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

housing complex? you're equating people using wifi outside of a library at night with it being a housing complex?

this is just another effort by another city to chase unhoused people out of an area, rather than, oh i dunno, building a mother fucking housing complex.

your attitude is toxic and it disgusts me. we dont provide housing, and people like you complain and moan about unhoused folk to the point that we have cops chasing them around the city and no way for them to meaningfully interface with the rest of the world. fuck off.

[–] alyaza@beehaw.org 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

this is just another effort by another city to chase unhoused people out of an area, rather than, oh i dunno, building a mother fucking housing complex.

the bar is actually much lower here technically, because an easy solution would be to just provide the service generally. you don't even need housing to solve this specific facet of the "problem" (although nobody should be homeless and we should build housing and rehouse them, to be clear!)

[–] Myzornis@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Probably too tired of cleaning up human shit from around the library. This is SF we're talking about. There's literally a poop map

[–] gormster@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

You’ve gotta think that these people would rather use a toilet. Is the public toilet situation in SF really that bad?

[–] supernovae@readit.buzz 0 points 2 years ago

It's bad everywhere.

[–] toxic@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Do you live in the states? I’ve never really been to a city where public restroom access is well advertised or even convenient. You’re expected to go inside places of business.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago

There are no public toilets in the vast majority of San Francisco.

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@lemmy.one 0 points 2 years ago

Do you think people who don't have access to a bathroom are going to stop shitting?

[–] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago

I just want to say Mission Local is pretty freakin cool for being one of the last remaining newspapers that does their own independent journalism.

[–] punkrocknoir@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

But how are they going to look for jobs at night now?

[–] BaldProphet@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago

They can do it at the library during the day, I guess.

[–] huskyhowlz@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This article has a great deep dive on how we have so few "free" or community-sourced places in the US that they often get used as a catch-all for any and all social problems we have. See: libraries as homeless shelters. From the article:

What’s happened is we’ve stigmatized our public spaces, because we’ve done so little to address core problems that we’ve turned them into spaces of last resort for people who need a hand. And as we do that, we send another message to affluent, middle-class Americans, and that is: If you want a gathering place, build your own in the private sector. So we have a lot of work to do.

[–] atypicaloddity@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (4 children)

That's a great point -- by making public places the only places you can exist while poor, you push all the homeless there and everyone else ends up avoiding it and going to places they have to spend money at. Enforced consumption.

Picnic in the park? Sorry, tent city there. Better go to a restaurant instead.

Baseball at the diamond? Needles and excrement, let's go bowling instead.

Grab some books from the library? Someone's smoking crack in the bathroom, I'll just buy the book from a store. Or Amazon.

Ideally these public spaces would be for everyone, but more and more they're repurposed for social services.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Harlan_Cloverseed@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago

Seems like the white thing to do

load more comments
view more: next ›