Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago

moderators

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 78 points 1 year ago (3 children)

They also weren't destroying rare books. They were buying in-print books from major retailers, which means that while yes, that is environmentally wasteful, it's not actually destroying books in the classical destruction of knowledge sense since the manufacturer will just print another one if there's demand for it.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] MrQuallzin@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This as well. Growing up in a house of book lovers, myself included, destroying a book was akin to kicking a puppy. Realistically though, they're ultimately consumables. They're meant to be bought, used, and replaced as needed. With luck the destruction included recycling as much as possible, seeing as it's mainly paper.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

Precisely, there's a reason that these days, books made for libraries are made to an entirely different standard than books sold at your local book store.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, you have millions of old books that nobody wants not even collectors. It's not just popular literature.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent