Thread
There could be some niche argument. For example, maybe digital books are cheaper (that isn't always the case now, but let's say it is then) so poorer people tend to buy them. But the digital versions, like today, can be taken back on a whim, altered, etc. While the paper books, assuming they don't get destroyed in some other way, are closer to ownership for the rich people. But that again is a different issue than simply online vs offline. This would miss the point that poor people will likely have access to ever cheaper technology that makes such issues less important. AI, etc.
Replies (1)
Poor people don't read books. That is one major reason why they stay poor.
I have a house full of paper books, but you really would need a mansion with a large library, to fit in many more. Most are rotting away in the basement or in boxes in the closet. I do the middle-class thing and go to the library, but they are also space-limited, so some books I like borrowing eventually get taken out of the shelves.
E-books are much better, as you can have as many as you have digital storage space, but I didn't want anyone to change them from underneath me, so I went online and built software that keeps books on relays and allows every part of them to be cryptographically signed and the changes tracked. Which solves that problem.
And then, anyone with a cell phone can have access to any book I also have access to, since the relay is public. This was better, then going offline, with my paper edition of Frankenstein, and sneering at the commoners who can't afford to buy 500000 paper books.
