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

World News

22083 readers
98 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] yenahmik@lemmy.world 68 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I’ve been to places that had free municipal wifi, mostly at libraries and bus stops. It seems like a small service that is generally helpful to people without access to their own wifi. I think the better solution is to have more places with free wifi at night so people don’t have to congregate in the one small area.

There aren’t many places the unhoused are allowed to exist in public and cutting them off from essential services only makes it harder for them to better their situation.

[–] Izzent@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

Internet should already be a human right at this point. It's a treasure trove of information that really catapults someone who has access to it ahead of someone who doesn't, meaning internet access is definitely an index of (in)equality.

[–] clutchmatic@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

to better their situation

Well, that is, assuming they want to. Some, definitely. Long term loiterers, not so sure.

[–] yenahmik@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

So we should take away something that is necessary to someone helping themselves (have you tried to apply for a job or take a class without using the internet recently, it's required), just because some people don't care about living in squalor?

If all they are doing is "loitering" to use the internet, then they aren't doing anything wrong. It sounds like the problem is simply the number of people and the neighbors didn't approve. In that case, the truly win/win option is to provide greater access points to free wifi so people don't have to congregate in one small area. This outcome only hurts people.

[–] Lowbird@beehaw.org 20 points 1 year ago

People who are addicted or who have given up to that degree are less likely to want help if they think real life can only be totally miserable for them (like, "the world is unbearable, there's nothing good left for me except [drug name here]"). Same reason people who are depressed turn to drinking. Making the lives of unsheltered people even worse, thus making drugs more appealing in comparison, is counterproductive. And the longer they're stuck in that, the more that'll just feel like what life is to them.

Maybe people who don't want to, or don't act like they want to, better their situation actually would if they could see any hope for it, and if the path looked more doable and less like scaling mount everest with a broken leg.

I think anybody can think of times they didn't want to do something that would benefit them - clean a house, do their homework, go to work in the morning - and other times that the situation was different and so it was much easier to do.

[–] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

California wants to help the homeless but they also don't want to pay for drug treatment, safe injection sites, or psychiatric centers.

[–] Scary_le_Poo@beehaw.org 16 points 1 year ago

California does, right wingers in California do not and they pay MASSIVE amounts of money for advertising campaigns to misrepresent drug treatment, safe injection sites, and psychiatric centers as free drugs and won't somebody think of the children???

Do you want one of THOSE people to be getting help next door to you? Oh the horror! Don't you know that junkies sneak off in the night, into your homes in order to stab your children with drug filled needles??? Do you have any idea what it's like to be near a psychiatric center? I do. My brother's nieces cousins uncle twice removed on her mother's side told me that the crazies like to kidnap your children and vandalize your house.

Where did I put my pearls? I'm in desperate need of clutching them.

/Dripping Sarcasm Also source: I live in CA

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SmolderingSauna@midwest.social 50 points 1 year ago (39 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 27 points 1 year 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 27 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (37 replies)
[–] _anarchism_@beehaw.org 49 points 1 year ago

absolutely no reason to do this other than to make the lives of people without housing harder.

[–] SolNine@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Harlan_Cloverseed@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago

Seems like the white thing to do

[–] huskyhowlz@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year 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 9 points 1 year 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)
[–] DJDarren@beehaw.org 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Andreas@feddit.dk 15 points 1 year 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 16 points 1 year 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 8 points 1 year 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)
[–] LilBiFurious@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year 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.

[–] yunggwailo@kbin.social 7 points 1 year 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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] alyaza@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year 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)
[–] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

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

[–] TheButtonJustSpins@infosec.pub 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not quite to aggressive architecture levels of dickishness, but still.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

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

[–] biscuitsofdoom@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago

Sounds like a great place to take a piss

[–] alyaza@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago (3 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!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] indite@kbin.social 8 points 1 year 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 9 points 1 year 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 7 points 1 year 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.

[–] MyMulligan@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago

Well written piece. Homelessness is a multifaceted issue.

I do know that if you have no cell service, having internet / Wi-Fi is essential to stay in touch with others. More communities should offer free Wi-Fi.

load more comments
view more: next ›