Maintaining public libraries are waste of money and resources since internet is now replacing their functions. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is argued by some that the cost involved in preserving and retaining public libraries is unnecessary considering the internet can now perform their functions. In my opinion, I believe that the internet has taken away the usefulness of libraries and the essence of maintaining public libraries has been defeated. Firstly, the internet has made sourcing for books and materials seamless. In other words, information on any topic or subject are available online and people can easily access them. This saves time and efforts that should have ordinarily been spent accessing libraries and searching the shelves for relevant information. For example, students need not spend long hours searching for books or waiting for books to be returned before the can access them. They can simply go online and get whatever information they require. Another point to consider is the convenience associated with using the internet. Through online applications, information can be sourced at any time regardless of the location. To expatiate, it is difficulty to access libraries at certain time of the day or when you are at some particular locations unlike the internet that is readily available at anytime. As a result, this can motivate people to surf for materials relevant to their progress at any time thereby, improving their study habits. For instance, various studies has shown that young people have increased in knowledge because of the availability of information online. To conclude, the usefulness of libraries has significantly reduced because of the introduction of internet and i believe that maintaining these facilities is a total waste of funds and resources which ought to be used to support other activities needed for societal growth.
What to do next:
Try other services:

All the services are free for Premium users

Recent essays: