Sometimes I wonder what are the fundamental differences between these states and Iran or Afghanistan except that their imaginary friend is slightly different.
Thankfully the title is slightly clickbaity. The research isn't actually being deleted at source - it is just no longer being offered by these libraries.
It is very curious that the ususally extremely loud "free speech" crowd from the US is so silent when the free speech violations happen now.<p>Banning literal words and then deleting research based on those words? If you needed a sign that you're well on your way into authotarianism, it doesn't get a lot clearer than that.<p>If you are for free speech only it it is for your side, you are not for free spech. In fact, I believe if you uncritically tow any party line, you gave up on critical thinking.
This headline is incredibly misleading to the point of being an inflammatory lie.<p>MLC (<a href="https://www.mlc.lib.ms.us/" rel="nofollow">https://www.mlc.lib.ms.us/</a>) is a state body that helps library systems in the state with govt money. They have a tool called MAGNOLIA that gives public libraries, community colleges, and k12 schools access to scholarly databases like ebscohost. This article says that MAGNOLIA no longer provides access to those collections. Larger universities in the state don't use MAGNOLIA as they have (and pay for) their own access.<p>No research is being deleted. Mississippi doesn't have the power to delete research in ebscohost. They're using a feature provided by ebscohost to exclude access to those collections. This is literally 2 bit flips in a database.<p><a href="https://connect.ebsco.com/s/article/Content-in-EBSCOhost-Databases-is-Diligently-Selected-by-Subject-Matter-Experts?language=en_US" rel="nofollow">https://connect.ebsco.com/s/article/Content-in-EBSCOhost-Dat...</a><p>However, if you have concerns about the material included in MAGNOLIA, you can request a review of the material on the MLC website: <a href="https://www.mlc.lib.ms.us/review/" rel="nofollow">https://www.mlc.lib.ms.us/review/</a>
I think a lot of gender studies and race studies in the US is either bogus, or makes the problem worse. But removing it from being searched also makes it harder to debunk, which is stupid in a totally different way.
I haven't made up my thinking about this yet. I think first there is the principal question. Is a library deleting content always a violation of free speech? And I think the answer to that question is no. A library comes with an expectation of quality, so they must do do content curation, keeping quality content in and low-quality content out. Those who are not judged to meet the bar are not silenced, they have other options for getting their opinions and material out.<p>But the harder question is whether this particular material was unfairly singled out or not. If the library is unfairly suppressing quality research then that would be a bad thing. I think what would help me understand the situation in that respect is if someone posted examples of high quality research that was deleted but arguably shouldn't have been.
As a European I feel like I have a lot of safety and guarantees.<p>I also have children and I obviously worry a great deal about what the world will look like when they grow up.<p>Whatever is happening at the moment has been set in motion in the past 15 years in this slow tectonic movement towards a likely repetition of past history. In that context there seems to be a huge information /misinformation/propaganda/psy ops operation happen under our feet.<p>The wake up call for me was during the past US presidential campaign. I heard in my social circle (three separate) under 25 yr old males (all raised and living in social-democratic Central Europe) repeating tiktok/instagram talking points, about how Trump "...will be good for 'the economy' ".<p>In light of past interesting discussion in HN, I ask the question:<p>How can we as citizens contribute to counter this? And how can governance / intelligence counter act something that now appears unstoppable and entrenched?
TIL a Mississippi based media organization can't even properly say "library stopped offering access to academic research" in the title, instead using words that are complete nonsense "delete research".<p>I don't know whether the reporting or the news itself is more disappointing.
Who would've believed that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451</a> would become real. And in the US of all places.