Librarians are dangerous

Changing Libraries and Collections

• Many reminisce about dense 80s–90s libraries full of serendipitous finds; now see “curation,” wider aisles, and “experience spaces” as reduced breadth, especially in STEM/CS.
• Others report the opposite: larger, better-funded buildings, bigger children’s sections, more books and programs.
• Accessibility standards (wider aisles, wheelchair passing) are cited as one driver of reduced shelf density.

Curation, Weeding, and Censorship

• Ongoing controversy over aggressive “weeding” and “deaccessioning” of older books, sometimes described as dumpsters and pulping.
• Some argue librarians are discarding important long‑tail or historical works (Ancient Greece/Rome, old tech, niche dictionaries) and over-relying on “it’s online.”
• Examples raised from both ideological directions:
  • Anti‑racist “inclusive” weeding and date cutoffs (e.g., pre‑2008 school collections).
  • Removal of LGBTQ or diversity‑related works in conservative regions.
• One camp sees librarians as defenders against book bans; another sees them as partisan curators quietly restricting viewpoints.

What Belongs on the Shelves

• Dispute over clearing “classics” to make space for popular, often low‑quality new titles versus duty to preserve older, serious, or “canonical” works.
• Some say limited space should go to what actually circulates, backed by interlibrary loan and off‑site stacks for archival titles.
• Others describe children’s and teen sections as dominated by shallow or politicized material, with few books of “lasting value.”
• LGBTQ representation is a flashpoint: some see it as basic inclusion, others as propaganda toward children.

Attention Spans and Media Environment

• One view: people “no longer have the attention span” for books; short‑form video and multitasking erode deep reading and nuance.
• Counterview: people binge long games, podcasts, and essays; the problem is bloated or bad books, not attention span per se.
• Several note there are more books and more high‑quality long‑form media than ever, but also far more garbage to wade through.

Libraries as Community Centers and Shelter

• Modern libraries often act as community hubs: storytime, study rooms, makerspaces, 3D printers, meetings, even TV rooms for kids.
• Some love this “third place” role; others resent noise, screens, and the presence of homeless patrons, saying branches feel more like shelters than libraries.
• There is tension between serving diverse community needs and preserving quiet, book‑centric spaces.

Physical vs Digital and Preservation

• Debate over shifting to e‑materials: some patrons and even staff claim nothing is lost by digitizing; others stress irreplaceable value of printed reference works and specialized texts.
• Concerns raised about fragile digital access: loss of projects like Google Books, legal attacks on archive sites, AI/SEO sludge burying real sources.

Children, Parents, and Access to Information

• Intense arguments about whether librarians should honor parental limits or give kids broad access, especially to material on sex, gender, and religion.
• One side emphasizes children’s rights to information and escape from abusive or highly controlling homes; the other stresses parental authority and fears of “state” or institutional overreach.
• This spills into disputes over “banned books week,” with some calling it performative and others crediting it for crucial exposure to contested texts.

Politics, Funding, and Power

• Several note librarians’ historic role in privacy protection and opposition to surveillance and censorship; some see hacker culture as inheriting these norms.
• Others argue librarians now have clear ideological leanings, especially in recommended non‑fiction and displays, undermining neutrality.
• Recent federal cuts to library and museum funding are cited as evidence that some political actors view librarians as threatening; others dismiss this and question whether public money should fund what they see as activism.

Reactions to the Essay’s Style

• Many liked the sentiment and art but criticized the piece’s tone as infantilizing, “millennial speak,” or LinkedIn‑like self‑congratulation.
• A minority found it genuinely heartwarming and fitting for a general or child‑oriented audience.