Forbes ran an article suggesting that Amazon bookstores replace libraries and then took it down once they realized maybe they shouldn't have run such a successful click-bait article.
QZ followed up on this article here.
I highly recommend reading it because it is just mind-boggling as to why Forbes ran it. They stated that “Forbes advocates spirited dialogue on a range of topics, including those that often take a contrarian view,” a Forbes spokesperson says in a statement. “Libraries play an important role in our society. This article was outside of this contributor’s specific area of expertise, and has since been removed.”
If you believe libraries are so important, then why did you run a piece from a person who isn't an expert on it? Editorial review is critical because it should have caught that this article wasn't a good idea since Panos Mourdoukoutas main argument is, "Local libraries aren’t free. Home owners must pay a local library tax. My bill is $495/year.”
The problem is once you put a terrible idea out on the internet it will inevitably find purchase in individual's minds and having such a piece run on Forbes only gives legitimacy to it. Spirited debates are excellent, op-eds are excellent, but when the discussion is the closure of a public institution that allows for the public to better themselves so the taxpayer can save $495/year, you might want to rethink the angle you are approaching for this op-ed.
It's clear to me that Forbes ran this piece for shock value and to get clicks. A plan that would have worked if this were any other timeline where the public wasn't so hyper-aware of the world around them. If it were that timeline, it would have possibly slipped through our filter, but running this piece shows that Forbes is out of touch with the lives of the people who use public libraries (Anyone and everyone).