A book is also a device, just less complex. The proliferation of digital devices is widespread and resilient enough that needing one to access a book isn’t gatekeeping in itself. Especially since you don’t need a digital device to access a book, digital books aren’t stopping you from having physical ones.
But it is a convenient, versatile and affordable way to gain access to more books than any traditional library could hold.
No it’s not. By no stretch of imagination is a book a device. Physical books don’t require any extra purchases, and the information in them is inherent.
Sure why not, just as long as you live next door to a vast library and it isn’t raining today, that could be a viable option. Or just keep a huge personal library in your own home. or…
If i want to read something digitally, i need to have a device that is good to read.
Let’s be clear, I’m not going to argue against the worth of physical books. I love books, use my local library a lot, and don’t own an e-reader. I’m only disputing the assertion that the need for reading devices means digital books are gatekept. e-readers and the like are widespread, reasonably affordable, and likely to become more so. Digital books are also accessible by other (not so ideal for reading) devices, which are even more ubiquitous.
It’s like saying that physical books are gatekept by the need for a reading light.
Gatekeeping implies some exclusive access which is not generally available. Book knowledge was gatekept before the existence of public libraries, even more so before the printing press. Even now the accessiblility of physical books and libraries depends a lot on where you live. Digital information, by contrast, has become broadly available extremely quickly and will remain so.
A book is also a device, just less complex. The proliferation of digital devices is widespread and resilient enough that needing one to access a book isn’t gatekeeping in itself. Especially since you don’t need a digital device to access a book, digital books aren’t stopping you from having physical ones. But it is a convenient, versatile and affordable way to gain access to more books than any traditional library could hold.
No it’s not. By no stretch of imagination is a book a device. Physical books don’t require any extra purchases, and the information in them is inherent.
device noun de·vice di-ˈvīs
1 : something devised or contrived: such as
a(1) : a piece of equipment or a mechanism designed to serve a special purpose or perform a special function …
Are you honestly arguing that a book is a device like for instance a computer is? Or a mechanical lock is?
No it’s a device like a book is. It’s an invention people made to store text etc in a robust easily accessible form.
deleted by creator
Sure why not, just as long as you live next door to a vast library and it isn’t raining today, that could be a viable option. Or just keep a huge personal library in your own home. or…
ah… there ya go
deleted by creator
Let’s be clear, I’m not going to argue against the worth of physical books. I love books, use my local library a lot, and don’t own an e-reader. I’m only disputing the assertion that the need for reading devices means digital books are gatekept. e-readers and the like are widespread, reasonably affordable, and likely to become more so. Digital books are also accessible by other (not so ideal for reading) devices, which are even more ubiquitous.
It’s like saying that physical books are gatekept by the need for a reading light.
Gatekeeping implies some exclusive access which is not generally available. Book knowledge was gatekept before the existence of public libraries, even more so before the printing press. Even now the accessiblility of physical books and libraries depends a lot on where you live. Digital information, by contrast, has become broadly available extremely quickly and will remain so.