HN Reader

A fun fact that please excuse me if off-topic: Mao Zedong was a librarian before he started the Bolshevik Revolution in China, and then he changed all of China. So it's often said in China that it's really dangerous to upset a librarian.

I thought this was going to to be about how librarians were instrumental in forming the OSS, which helped the US win WWII (yes, this is real).

https://www.harpercollins.com/products/book-and-dagger-elyse...

I used to skip school for at least two days to go to the big library in my city. I taught myself a lot of things. Did have access to books and high speed internet (by this era standards anyway) that I couldn't have or afford at home.

I wouldn't encourage people to skip school to do that of course. But I owe this period of my life a lot of what I am today. Someone with interest in science and tech. I have known some of the people working there and they were happy helping me navigating the library (and grap books for the short boy who is too short for most of the shelves).

I wasn't happy with how it turned out the last year when I visited.

Just a comment that the library has become my "third space" these days.

I am sooo grateful my local University library is open for public visitors. I visit every weekend and enjoy fast internet, a pleasant and quiet environment and can plug my laptop into one of many large desktop monitors here.

I've never met a librarian like this article describes. I have met people like this in many other walks of life, but I've never met a librarian who seemed like anything but a scold with a stick up their ass.

This works if you actually have dangerously good librarians. I had one that could remember every single book location but she was extremely rude and treated everyone as a mentally challenged. Her daughter lived under severe dictatorship with no confidence and self esteem.

Simple: information is power. Why else would so many go so far to control it.

Also librarians are some of the most overeducated and underpaid people out there. Thank you for what you do.

> Librarians are dangerous

Anybody who has been listening to “Welcome to Night Vale” could have told you that years ago.

I thought the author was describing a chatbot when reading the first half of this article.

I learned a lot, thanks.

Ebooks and Internet sources of all forms of media have rendered public libraries moot as book providers: every person alive (in the US) has a cell phone, and most have laptops, and can with a modicum of bootstrapping access these sources, without having to travel to a special building (partially) filled with paper books, to obtain a copy of almost any book in existence.

> Today’s dangerous librarians are much more. They are part educator, part tech wizard, part data analyst, and part myth-slayer.

> They host storytimes, teach kids about misinformation, explain how to 3D print a prosthetic hand, and calmly help a grown man named Todd recover his Gmail password for the seventh time. All before lunch.

> [Librarians] are dangerous to: Misinformation, Censorship, Outdated printer settings, Small thinking, apathy, loneliness

Who asked them to play these roles? If the public school system has failed to the extent that people are incapable of using online methods to find books or other resources, or login to their Google account, why is it the role of a librarian to backfill these gaps (and for taxpayers to be forced to fund such a peculiar backfilling approach)?

And some of the touted roles ("dangerous to: Misinformation, Censorship, Small thinking, apathy") are clearly social activist in nature; the meaning of all of these is in the eye of the beholder. So why are taxpayers obligated to (unquestioningly) fund people who clearly perceive their role, at least in part, as activist in nature? IMO you are welcome to engage in activist activities on your own dime, not mine.

So I certainly wonder where the value is in "libraries" since, say, 2010 (and yes, I read the article). If not for "book banning" stories, I doubt librarians would be a topic of conversation. Libraries and librarians are like some weird 20th century anachronism which persists into the 21st century largely because it's part of a (by definition well-established) bureaucracy (and lobby/union).

Look, I love the sentiment, and the illustrations are charming.

Unfortunately, the writing.

It's...stilted.

It's presented as a letter/email, but it reads as though the author wants you to hear someone with good comedic timing... DELIVERING IT LIKE STANDUP!

But ellipses...do not translate to funnier text. The text just has to be funny! "Pauses" only enhance what's already there!

> write a quippy, funny letter from a "concerned citizen" to their community highlighting the "danger" posed by librarians. said "danger" is their vendetta against ignorance, illiteracy. style should involve SUDDEN CAPS FOR EMPHASIS, ellipses...for...artificial comedic timing. But there's something more important to the style. Something being demonstrated in this very sentence. Yes - it's *short, narration-like rhythms". These shorter sentences should occupy their own paragraph.

If you can replicate a blog post with a single LLM prompt, you start to wonder whether the author had the same thought.

I always found it interesting how hacker culture is largely propped up on the protections society has carved out for librarians following world war 2 (where certain sections of society had been identified based on what books they had looked at).

The hacker culture of “information wants to be free” is largely predicated on the librarian mantras of the same sentiment and only given protection by western europe after clear and serious abuse.

Librarians are the very forefront of information access and the privacy of looking up certain information, we owe them a lot.

This is consistent with my experience. One of the most impressive and inspiring presentations I saw at last year's HOPE conference [1] was from members of the Library Freedom Project [2].

1. https://hope.net

2. https://libraryfreedom.org

I miss the days when they shushed people. Nowadays, librarians where I go (to several local libraries) are invariably the loudest, most shameless talkers in the place.

This reads like the sort of self-congratulatory articles journalists were fond of writing about themselves in the late-2010s, just as public trust in journalism was reaching an all-time low.

I suspect the same thing is happening with librarians as they’ve begun to abandon all pretence of being impartial guardians of information in favor of larping as members of The Resistance. Ironically, the experts never seem to learn that you can only play this game for so long before no one cares what you have to say anymore.

I've been working in the space the last few years and what I've gathered is Librarians themselves often hate what libraries have become. The ones working in University libraries seem to enjoy their job a lot more than the ones in large cities that act as homeless shelters.

I wish much of the lore about librarians were actually true, but these days they seem to be mostly focused on either filling up dumpsters full of old books for sale (why are they getting rid of all of the old books), stocking the shelves with DVDs (why are libraries in the movie-rental business?), or else organising things that seem to be quite tangentional to being a "library". For example, I think it's fine to take family photos or ID photos for kids... but is this really the primary mission of a library?

When I need an inter-library loan of a hard-to-find book, they say they can't do it since the Amazon price of the book is over $1,000. (Of course, we all know the Amazon prices are basically made up - offering books for sale that aren't in stock, and on the chance they get an order at an outrageous price, go try and find it cheap on the secondary market.)

Nonetheless, they're always asking for money - whether applying for grants, putting property tax levies on the ballot, attempting to raise sales taxes, despite the ever-decreasing levels of service, alongside requisite threats "If we don't pass this item, the library will close!!!"

I view librarians as ones that completely missed the boat when it comes to their traditional domain of organising indexes to literature, which has been eclipsed first by Google, and now by AI in general.

The tragedy of the modern library is that no one has the attention span for good books. Libraries are getting rid of the classics to make room for new books, the majority of which are not worth the paper they’re printed on. We would do well to heed C.S. Lewis’ call to read more old books for every new book that we read.

This reads like the sort of self-congratulatory articles journalists were fond of writing about themselves in the late-2010s, just as public trust in journalism was reaching an all-time low. I suspect the same thing is happening with librarians as they’ve begun to abandon all pretence of being impartial guardians of information in favor of larping as members of The Resistance. Ironically, the experts never seem to learn that you can only play this game for so long before no one cares what you have to say anymore.

This comment got flagged within minutes after I had originally posted it, which is an indication of how seriously freedom of information is valued by those on the other side of this issue.

Ah! It makes a reference to Rose, the Hat (character in the Doctor Sleep movie). "My head is a library [...] you're just a fucking child". Hence the drawings looking like children homework.

So, if it is an AI that wrote it, maybe it has movie script training. That would be a smart move. Movies themselves draw specific personas to the foreground of a human mind and could put them in specific moods.

Or is it a human who wrote it? Maybe it was an angel.

--

Ok, no movie business. Is there a difference between biblioteconomist and librarian? I think one is more akin to that notion of classifying without curating or censoring that so many here aluded to.

In practice, I wouldn't know! (fun oversharing fact: I actually considered biblioteconomy as a degree).

I think the post is good and kind for a general audience. It's a good message that I truly believe in.

But I believe it could be harmful for those diagnosed with conditions such as Havana Syndrome, Schizophrenia and similar disorders. That is due to the fun ambiguous tone of "dangerous", which could have unexpected effects in someone going through a psychotic episode (I had one once, not a pleasant experience). There must be a better, less snarkier way of promoting literacy without creating those potential side effects.

My local libary is great for me at the point I am at life. Clean bathrooms, 3d printers and laser cutters, video conference rooms, free videos to watch, comfy chairs, a huge manga section. Not a lot of physical books anymore. I guess I can just use an e-reader and check one out that way. No more discovery.

Librarians are very dedicated, this was missed in the article. They are the first defenders against our freedom to think, read and express our thoughts.

Recently, I interviewed 2 librarians for an essay about recent book banning. They are vehemently against book banning, specially classics as seen in recent media.

https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill

https://pen.org/banned-books-list-2025/

https://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2023/03/record-book-...

https://www.heinz.cmu.edu/media/2023/October/book-bans-may-h...

edit: newlines to separate links

Treating “knowledge” in the abstract is dangerous. “Knowledge” consists of manuscripts . A book store or library is merely a curation of those manuscripts (or their copies).

Librarians actually are dangerous, in that they present “knowledge” as neutral, and “more knowledge” as an unquestionable good. Nearly all librarians and book store clerks share a skewed ideology.

Everyone expects a Christian, Muslim or Jewish book store to be filled with a tailored curation of books. Libraries and book stores are ironically treated as neutral “knowledge repositories”.

My point is that every collection is curated according to the taste and the agenda of the curator or librarian.

It is the quality of the collection that makes it good, not the volume. Librarians are dangerous because they’ve convinced the public that they are gatekeepers of knowledge, when they are actually just curators.

I expected this to be about the Brandon Sanderson teen series that starts with Alcatraz vs The Evil Librarians.

I love libraries and I credit the library of my home town for being who I am.

I don't remember much that the actual people in the library did for me, beyond letting me take books at a time than was allowed.

But still, they did let me do that, and asked me for books to buy.

Maybe they did more for me than I thought.

Indeed

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_War

Joking aside, librarians have always been facing so much. Kids and parents are a whole topic, but many adults coming to a public library aren't just there to spend some time, they can be at a pivotal time in their life with a specific need, and getting enough info or access to the proper resources is so critical.

I still remember a clerk at our public library talking to an old lady who's husband was hositalized, and trying to guess what medical book covered the proper stuff.

On my campus, almost all institutional libraries have been closed down over the course of the last 20 years. There's still the main campus library and I went there quite a few times to work in peace and quiet. However, I have to admit that I never needed any of their books.

Okay. The point is that someone, yes, SOMEONE, needs to make the call as to what goes on the shelves. Mien kampf? The Anachist's Cook Book? Lady Chatterley's Lover? Is is librarians who make the decision AND IT IS NOT THE SAME FOR EVERY LIBRARY GOER!!!! Yep. They consider who's asking and why. They are some of the few remaining trusted professionals, and they remain so because we think they're harmless drudges. Power to 'em!

In my university, I spent more time in the library than anywhere else reading all kinds of books ranging from encyclopedia brittannica to religion to course books to magazines and everything else in between. I do regret not working harder on my course subjects but the decision to spent hours at the library was a life changing one which resulted in me opening my eyes to a world beyond my hometown.

So I kind of hastily posted this one as a follow-up:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43737275

While librarians can be "dangerous", libraries can be extremely beautiful (or vice versa, who knows...?). When traveling, I often try to visit ones, and, of course, we have some iconic photographs of them too.

Because I saw others here speak about their libraries, I will too.

I'm Polish, I live in a big city. My libraries around, are, to say it mildly, awful. At best, they'll contain old school readings, some history book from communist period and old tech manuals (old as in, Win 95 guides or for tech that is no longer used).

I really envy Americans in this aspect.

Why do people speak online as if the library is a place anyone goes to? I understand some people still go to libraries, but this cannot be considered a commonplace activity like it once was. Librarians do not hold any meaningful position in society because so few people come in contact with them.

Schools should include psychology, neuroscience, and some other books which help to bring courage and confidence to survive in real life problems.

It's interesting to note that at the core of Asimov's Foundation (spoiler: Va n frafr, ng gur pber bs obgu bs gurz.) was a bunch of librarians that were supposed to help restore the galaxy to order after a prolonged period of decline brought by disintegration of the galactic Empire.

It seems relevant to this article, and its portrayal of librarians as dangerous, that the national Institute for Museum and Library Services was recently essentially destroyed by Presidential executive order and DOGE, probably illegally, its grants largely or entirely revoked, and its employees laid off.

See, e.g., https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/11/trum...

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/l...

New York City libraries are a cross between homeless shelters and daycare centers. And they're closed on Sundays.

I really dislike fiction where the author tries to convince you it's real but has so many holes that it reads like more like a hastily conceived debate premise than a real work.

In reality libraries are one of the most conservative classes of people, especially odd the distinction since I'm sure there are plenty of progressive minded librarians. Doesn't help that the average age gap between a reader and their librarian is greater than average life expectancy.

The last two libraries I’ve visited have been taken over by homeless … err, the unhomed. The first one had one dude watching porn and farting an impressive amount. The second one has been taken over because it’s close to a homeless encampment - becoming more of a secondary housing site and less of a library. This is in two separate cities in the PNW.

I can’t even really enter into the debate about librarians since the library experience has been so entirely off putting for me. It’s most certainly not a place I’ll take my kids, even though it consumes a significant percentage of my municipal taxes.

I’m envious of the folks who have a maker space-like experience, that sounds nice!

Ideas are dangerous, librarians just stockpile and distribute them. In terms of potential energy books are more disruptive than nukes. The keepers who wrangle their power should have proportional status.

I really loved the local library in the 80s/very early 90s (as a kid without network access). I probably spent like 20-25 hours per week there.

Now when I visit it's always meh. They have sacrificed breadth and density for "curation" and "experience spaces".

The space between the book shelves seems to have almost doubled. Why?

Bring back super high dense book shelving filled with interesting stuff.

Felt sure that this thread would reference Terry Pratchett, he was a man who understood the danger of librarians.

In the stacks of the Main Branch of the Brooklyn Public Library, if you went to 612.6, you saw that a librarian had direct view of that aisle from her desk. But she was often not at that desk, so timing was involved.

I have begun taking my children to the local library, and I am shocked at how bad the selection is. There are very few books of lasting value in any part of the library. Nothing of serious or intellectual interest. And were I to give a factual description of the childrens and teens sections, I would get banned by dang. This is wildly different from the collections that I grew up with, in libraries trashed now by standard publishing spam, despite having vastly more money and space than they did when I was a kid.

Poorly curated libraries (though often staffed to the gills with "librarians") are a gaping cultural void and vacuum, while well-curated libraries are an important treasure. Good curation has little or nothing to do with "battling" misinformation/censorship, which in practice always seems to be about librarians championing a very bland and particular political monoculture. Good curation is the art of discerning the important, the unique, and the interesting, and avoiding the vast flows of spam that overwhelm everything these days.

That was enjoyable. And the artwork doubled it.

Stalin was no librarian himself but owned over 25000 books/pamphlets and invented his own classification scheme.

1. Stalin’s Library by Geoffrey Roberts

2. https://youtu.be/aa-00IN1b6g

Indeed. Power-hungry authoritarians, demagogues, and ideologues of all stripes (ethnic, religious, etc.) have always viewed books as dangerous.

Just look at the long list of major book-burning incidents throughout history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_book-burning_incidents

Books are dangerous, because knowledge is dangerous -- dangerous to ignorance, censorship, and misinformation.

Very well written. Thank you.

Librarians are wonderful. I married one.

Awwe! I teared up! 'cause it's true!!!

long live librarians

I’ve moved to UK and I’m annoyed by lack of STEM books in libraries.

I thought this was going to be about how librarians are exposed to raw knowledge that is true goes against the current-year narrative, a.k.a. "malinformation", and librarians should be monitored for signs of wrongthink.

But don't call them "monkey" or they may become really dangerous.

...

I expected more Diskworld references when talking about dangerous yet highly skilled librarians.

Ook

If they were actually dangerous, the regime would not be allowing them to support and reinforce the regime narrative that it wants to spread and would instead have aggressively attacked them.

No, the fact that the regime has not a single time moved against libertarians tells anyone with some sense that the regime very much sees them not only as not dangerous, but useful.

This would make an excellent kids book...

What if your primary way of learning isn’t reading? Are librarians still as necessary?

Holy shit librarians are fucking wonderful.

Many of my coolest collaborators have been library science or information studies people. They are just the people I trust the most to have a sensible balanced worldview between theory and action, and with enough distance to understand the false idols of capital and power.

I feel librarians so often get to be the sort of people that teachers wish they could be, if those teachers weren't so micro-managed by the state and the system

I thought you said "Libertarians"...

ayn rand is a menace