adelynhanlon

Adelyn Hanlon is a writer from Tallahassee, Florida. She is a collector of words and lover of literature who enjoys travel and good food. While passionate about defending civil liberties and discussing prominent political issues in her work, she has also published a fiction short story in a literary magazine.

Accessibility and All-Digital Libraries

Uproar ensued at Vermont State University in early February when the institution announced its intentions of moving its library fully digital. The university is being created from a merging of three separate institutions, and the merger and digital library are expected to be completed by July 1st of 2023. The university cited financial constraints and accessibility as reasons for eliminating a physical library, also claiming to have consulted with the staff and student body on the issue. However, staff members and students publicly stated their dissatisfaction with the university’s decision.

The Positives

In response to backlash regarding the Vermont State University’s decision, the university’s president stated, “Higher education is changing. And digital libraries are the way of the future.” Many libraries are deciding to move towards a digital space. These libraries shifting to the digital realm usually give accessibility as a reason for the shift, just like Vermont State University. Digital libraries offer many ways to increase accessibility.

Time

While less of an issue for public libraries, time is critical for university libraries. Procrastinating students researching the night before would no longer be hindered by the inconvenient interlibrary loan. Digital sources would be available immediately without waiting on the physical book to be sent to the student’s library location from another library. The speed of access to materials increases with a transition to a digital library.

Night owls and early birds would be able to access materials at all hours of the night and the very early morning. Unlike a physical library, resources can be accessed digitally from home at any time. Students’ access to books is no longer limited to hours of operation.

Mobility

Mobility is less critical for public libraries but important for university libraries. Commuters and traveling students would be able to access materials on the go. Rather than being burdened by physical books or being unable to access the materials needed, students could access resources digitally.

Covid-19 lockdowns forced students to work online. Access to physical libraries was impossible due to legal restrictions. University campuses were closed, and students were forced to work online. Even after the 2020 Covid-19 lockdowns were over, many students remained online. Because of this, digital libraries increase accessibility for them. Remote or online students may not have the ability to access physical library resources.

Removal of Physical Barriers

Digital libraries could expand accessibility for those with disabilities. This is a critical issue for both public and university libraries. Those with mobility issues wouldn’t have to worry about getting to and from the building. People who are visually impaired can utilize auditory functions, such as texts that can be read aloud. Those who experience sight impairment would also be able to make visual changes to the materials, such as adjusting font size and screen brightness to personal preference.

Digital libraries increase access to texts in different languages. International students or multilingual students would have a greater chance of utilizing materials in the language of their choice. Physical libraries are more limited in the ability to have multilingual resources.

The Negatives

Regardless of the benefits of going digital, many readers are opposed. For example, Vermont State University students protesting the digital library explained that the digital format actually decreases accessibility.

Lack of Resources

According to the Federal Communications Commission, “Approximately 19 million Americans—6 percent of the population—still lack access to fixed broadband service at threshold speeds.” Internet both costs money and is difficult to obtain in rural areas. Digital libraries create another expense that may not be accessible to some.

Digital media must be consumed using a device. Students need to have access to a computer or e-reader to utilize the resources from a digital library. A physical library offers access to those unable to obtain a device. Additionally, not everyone has a place to complete work. A physical library offers a safe quiet space to work and read with internet access.

Lack of Assistance

Many Americans struggle with digital literacy. According to a study conducted by Pew Research Center, “A majority of U.S. adults can answer fewer than half the questions correctly on a digital knowledge quiz.” Eliminating a physical library and moving to a digital one could harm the digitally illiterate.

Removing the physical library also removes in-person assistance from librarians. Locating the desired information or source can be difficult. Utilizing the search engine may look different from library to library and is sometimes difficult to manage. Searches can require certain keywords in order to locate the desired information. A physical library allows a person to ask for assistance from an in-person professional rather than navigating a digital space alone or with a chatbot.

Physical Barriers

Staring at a computer screen or e-reader constantly can be both annoying and a real problem for some. Blue light from many screens affects the body’s circadian rhythm and ability to sleep. Those with brain injuries are instructed to avoid looking at screens. Conditions such as computer syndrome can develop, causing vision problems.

Combatting the Negatives

While some issues with digital libraries such as blue light exposure are unavoidable, some are already being combatted. Libraries are already beginning to blend digital media with physical space. The space could be smaller and less staffed due to the elimination of physical media, but still offer a place to work and a librarian to assist. Additionally, maintaining a physical space would allow those without internet access to utilize digital media while in the library’s physical space. Some libraries allow people to borrow e-readers and computers, helping those unable to purchase the appropriate technology to consume digital media. In a world with rapidly advancing technology, the digital world is inevitable. Libraries should attempt to increase accessibility as they navigate the integration of digital media.

Digital “Ownership”

According to a study conducted by Virtua, 77% of Americans would prefer to own digital items rather than stream them. Between video streaming services, news publication subscriptions, audiobook subscriptions, and eBook subscriptions, Americans are exhausted by recurring fees without retention of a digital item. With the purchase of a physical book, consumers maintain the book until it is damaged or lost. Ownership of the physical book copy belongs to the purchaser of the book. This is not the case for the purchase of digital media.

Individual Readers

This issue of ownership is further exacerbated by the possibility of eBooks disappearing from a person’s device if a company wishes. In 2009, Amazon infamously remotely removed copies of George Orwell’s 1984 from purchasers’ devices. This quiet remote removal perfectly exemplifies this issue of ownership. While the issue was remedied and the books returned, the possibility of remotely removing digital media still exists, meaning that purchasers may lose access to a book they paid for.

If a platform is discontinued or a business goes under, the eBooks supported by the platform will become inaccessible. Unlike a physical book, access to an eBook is dependent on the platform that supports it. Currently, no procedures are in place to preserve the ability to access the book. If the platform disappears, so do the eBooks supported by that platform. In 2019, Microsoft shut down its eBook store, causing all eBooks purchased through its platform to be inaccessible. The retention of an eBook is contingent on the platform remaining intact.

The possibility of removal or disappearance of a purchased eBook reveals that the purchaser does not truly own a copy of the book. The purchase of an eBook is a license to read it, not true ownership. Additionally, purchasers are unable to allow others to borrow their eBook or to resell it as they could with a physical book copy.

“Digital retailers insist that ownership depends on the terms of an end user license agreement (‘EULA’)—that incomprehensible slew of legalese you reflexively click ‘I agree’ to dismiss. Those terms—negotiated by lawyers working for retailers and publishers—determine your rights, not the default entitlements of personal property. And buried within those thousands of words that we all ignore is one consistent message: you don’t own the books you bought; you merely license them. That is to say, you have permission to read them. Until one day, you don’t.”
The End of Ownership

Libraries

Libraries experience problems with digital ownership as well. Libraries cannot retain unlimited access to disperse digital media because it would be financially harmful to the publisher. From the library’s perspective, Libraries must repurchase eBooks after a certain amount of borrows. Libraries are bound to expensive subscriptions to eBooks that must be renewed. Therefore, libraries do not truly own the material they are purchasing.

Over the past few months, lawsuits in several states pertaining to libraries’ purchase and retention of eBooks have arisen. Multiple states are attempting to create legislation requiring publishers to sell eBooks to libraries at a “reasonable” price. Maryland passed legislation requiring this but was overruled in higher court due to copyright issues and constitutional boundaries. To quote the Opinion of the court, “Striking the balance between the critical functions of libraries and the importance of preserving the exclusive rights of copyright holders… is squarely in the province of Congress and not this Court or a state legislature.”

Legislation passed by states on this issue has proven unsuccessful thus far. This allows publishers to ensure that digital books are only borrowed or accessible through subscription, not owned. Libraries are left with soaring eBook subscription prices that must be paid over and over again, instilling fear that they may be unable to access the desired media due to cost.

Subscription Model

While many areas of digital media are shifting towards the subscription model, eBooks may be shifting away from it. Recurring fees and the possibility of losing a purchased digital book are concerning to consumers. Individual readers and libraries alike are concerned about the lack of ownership. If you must repurchase your book, do you really own it?

As a publisher, digital ownership must be approached from both a financial and ethical perspective. In a world moving steadily more digital, the thought of not truly owning any purchased digital material is concerning. Americans’ attitudes about digital media are changing, and publishers should adapt their methods to align with consumers. Publishers should consider how to best accommodate the needs and wants of consumers in a way that preserves financial growth.

The Substack Doctors

Covid-19 brought an interesting issue to the surface. What happens when social media sites decide to censor information that they deem false? During the Covid-19 pandemic, many doctors were censored for opposing things such as lockdowns, vaccinations, and mandates. Doctors expressing unpopular opinions or differing data findings were promptly flagged, suspended, or banned. Because of this, many of the censored doctors fled to Substack to continue writing.

What exactly is Substack?

Hamish McKenzie, Chris Best, and Jairaj Sethi created Substack in 2017. It is essentially a blog and email newsletter platform. Writers can decide whether to make their content accessible for free or with a paid subscription. Consumers are often able to access some of the content online for free, in blog format. Subscribers receive the content in their email inboxes. Writers that choose to utilize the subscription format pay a 10% fee to Substack.

Misinformation Station?

Substack received an influx of users and a place in the spotlight in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. Social media sites like Twitter censored many users for propagating “misinformation.” Some of the censored users were simply online personalities such as Joe Rogan, who is well known for his conspiracy theories and polarizing opinions. However, some of the censored users were doctors. Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Joseph Mercola, Dr. Robert Malone, and Dr. Rashid Buttar are just a few of the censored doctors.

For their remarks regarding the Covid-19 virus and frequently the MRNA vaccinations in particular, these censored physicians as well as numerous others faced harsh criticism. Much of their content is very controversial, hence becoming banned from social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook.

After becoming banned from social media platforms, many of these controversial doctors fled to Substack. Substack allowed them to continue expressing their findings and opinions freely. In turn, Substack received intense backlash for harboring doctors perceived by many as misleading frauds.

Substack responded in an article written by founders Hamish McKenzie, Chris Best, and Jairaj Sethi titled “Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse.” The title of the article perfectly encapsulates the sentiments of the founders. They quote in the article, “we will always view censorship as a last resort because we believe open discourse is better for writers and better for society.”

Rise of Subscriptions?

Those fleeing from social media censorship and Substack have formed a sort of symbiotic relationship. Many of the censored doctors are noted to have tens of thousands of Substack subscribers. Substack’s subscription model has proven very successful. Doctors choosing to write articles expressing opinions that are not politically accepted have grown a dedicated subscriber base. Many consumers appear interested in investigating the suppressed information.

The doctors voicing contentious Covid-19 results and opinions do not only attract a sizable subscriber base; they also represent one of Substack’s major revenue streams. According to the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Anti-vax content has supposedly brought in $2.5 million. While Substack takes their 10% cut, 90% of the revenue goes to the writer themselves.

Many social media sites are currently undergoing controversy due to their censorship, including that of the doctors. After Elon Musk purchased Twitter, he has been releasing information pertaining to the previous owners of Twitter’s suppression of information and collusion with the federal government.

With many content producers such as doctors and now many consumers fleeing social media and flocking to Substack, does this indicate a rise of the subscription model? Social media has driven away many doctors rejecting censorship. However, as a consumer, utilizing Substack and subscribing to many different doctors is both tedious and impractical. Before the rise of social media, a subscription to a publication would allow access to the work of multiple different writers. Social media allows you to follow many different accounts without cost and to easily access them in the home feed. To keep up with these methods, Substack must become more practical.

A new tactic has already begun popping up. Some doctors are creating joint Substack accounts. Subscription to one Substack includes access to articles from multiple different writers. For example, Dr. Peter McCullough and John Leake have created a joint Substack called “Courageous Discourse.” The subscription includes articles from both writers pertaining to civil liberties and clinical science. This approach to Substack will likely grow in popularity, and as a consumer, it is certainly more convenient.

Despite the controversy, Substack is only rising in popularity. Doctors are finding new ways to share information and utilize Substack’s subscription model. Substack’s rejection of censorship will continue to set it apart from other media platforms unless others begin to follow suit. Substack has created a reputation as a haven for free speech, for better or for worse.

Ethics of Post-Publication Editing

In the digital media era, a new problem has arisen. Should pieces be edited post-publication? If so, in what situations? Amid the chaos of media distrust, misinformation, censoring, and “fake news,” questions of post-publication editing ethics have arisen. Editing published articles should be approached with transparency and caution as distrust in the media is rampant.

Digital Media Consumption

Digital media consumption has skyrocketed in recent years. In a Pew Research study conducted in 2016, only 38% of Americans reported often consuming news media digitally. In another Pew study conducted in 2022, 86% reported consuming news from a digital device. In the span of just six years, digital media consumers doubled.

Pew Research conducted another study, this time concerning Americans’ trust in the media in 2022. Findings revealed 61% of Americans trust national news sources and 31% trust social media. The usage of digital devices to consume media has increased yet trust in media sources is relatively low. In the same study, 64% of Americans noted that fabricated news stories or “fake news” creates confusion about the actual facts of an event.

While post-publication editing is not the sole cause of Americans’ distrust in the news, it is likely a contributor. Before digital media production and consumption, undetected post-publication editing was impossible. Edits can be conducted digitally post-publication without the consumer’s knowledge. With the rise of digital media, distrust in the media and those who produce it has risen. Knowing this, writers and publishers should attempt to mitigate the growing distrust.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

Many journals have chosen to join the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) or similar organizations. COPE is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting ethical publishing. COPE does not allow editing of articles post-publication without specific criteria followed.

“Any necessary changes will be accompanied with a post-publication notice which will be permanently linked to the original article so that readers will be fully informed of any necessary changes. This can be in the form of a correction notice, an expression of concern, a retraction and in rare circumstances a removal. The purpose of this mechanism of making changes which are permanent and transparent is to ensure the integrity of the scholarly record.”
(COPE)

However, most publications that are not peer-reviewed scholarly journals do not subscribe to any regulations for editing published material. Even if a publication does not wish to join a committee, the publication should introduce regulations on post-publication editing specific to them. With the increasing fear of misinformation, editing articles post-publication could be necessary in order to correct any realized mistakes. These mistakes should be corrected to protect the perceived accuracy of the publication. However, corrections should be rare, and the publication should be transparent about the edits.

When should post-publication edits be conducted?

Sometimes the information within an article is false and either slipped through the cracks while undergoing editing, or the correct information was simply confused by the writer. For example, maybe the name of an individual referenced or discussed in the article was misspelled, or a date was incorrect. Perhaps, however, a larger mistake was made, with greater repercussions, like a statement made about the wrong company that could affect their business.

In the first situation, it could be appropriate to simply change the spelling of the individual’s name. Most people would agree that in that case there is no need to make a public statement justifying the decision. However, with an incorrect piece of information with larger ramifications, it would be appropriate to notate the date of the edit and the information changed.

Occasionally, another contributor to the published article will argue that they deserve recognition for their contributions to the piece of media. An author’s name may not appear on the piece, but they greatly assisted in writing it. In this case, it would not be inappropriate to properly recognize the article’s contributors.

In extreme situations, an article may necessitate retraction. If the information is suspected to have been intentionally fabricated or misleading, the article may need to be removed. In this case, it would be appropriate to mark the article as having been retracted or as undergoing investigation. However, this should of course be reserved for extreme cases.

Trust

In a research article from “The International Journal of Press/Politics,” a statement was made regarding the importance of trust. “Trust can be understood as an asset on which news organizations capitalize to generate reputation and economic profit.” As we move to a digital world, retaining trust in the media is critical. Editing an article post-publication was unheard of before the current era of digital media. Print publications cannot simply press a button and delete or edit an article that has been released to the public. The ability to quickly edit with ease is both a blessing and a curse. While it may save a writer, editor, or publisher from a difficult situation, it also creates new problems as they navigate how and when to utilize that ability. Writers, editors, and publishers should do their best to maintain consumers’ trust as they utilize post-publication editing.

Writing News for Twitter

According to research conducted by Pew, 86% of U.S. adults report they get news from a smartphone, computer, or tablet “often” or “sometimes.” 60% report they “often” do so. One of the most common ways of consuming digital news, particularly with younger generations, is through social media. “Of Americans aged 18-29, 42% use social media as their primary source of news,” Pew says.

While all social media platforms are often utilized for news consumption, the practice of using specifically Twitter for this purpose is commonly known. “As of December 2022, Twitter’s audience accounted for over 368 million monthly active users worldwide.” Knowing this, how should writers adapt? To create consumable content, writers must move with the times, including creating news content for Twitter.

To write successful and consumable news on Twitter two things should be kept in mind: length and style.

Length

While it may potentially be expanded, Twitter currently has a 280-character limit. Sentences must be concise and information-packed to fit within the character limit. Because of this, many writers and news sources have opted for a link to a full-length article with a short commentary or headline.

Another option is to utilize threads. Threads break up the content into bite-sized parts that are linked together in order to beat the character limit. While this is acceptable with a few tweets, it
quickly becomes tedious and confusing to read with a long thread. In such a situation, linking to the entire article would be preferable to slicing and dicing the material. Another option is to both link the full article and include a thread of Tweets.

Facebook notes how quickly readers scroll from one piece of content to the next. “In the News Feed on Facebook, we’re seeing people spend, on average, 1.7 seconds with a piece of content on mobile compared to 2.5 seconds on desktop.^” All writing must be incredibly succinct due to the ability to quickly scroll away from a piece of content and immediately consume fresh media. The shortening of attention spans calls for concise writing, especially online.

Style

Former President Donald Trump is infamous for his questionable Tweets. Whether the information in the Tweets was accurate or not, the style of the Tweets was mostly to blame for the criticism he received. He utilized slang terms, overcapitalization, and over-punctuation. To retain credibility, these stylistic choices should be avoided.

The limited length calls for snappy concise Tweets. Information should be succinct and eye-catching but avoid becoming sensational. If posting a summary or headline along with a link to the entire piece, the headline should be strong without sacrificing any formality. It can be tempting to include flame or siren emojis to attract attention, but this exaggerated choice may not be the best for prefacing a news article.

When using a thread, the opening tweet should have the greatest impact. The initial tweet in the thread will receive the most attention and, if written correctly, may entice people to read the rest of the thread.

Images of tables or graphs or polls can be utilized to increase engagement. Using hashtags associates the tweet with others with the same hashtag, potentially increasing traffic.

Personal Accounts

Writing choices made on an official news company account, such as @CNN, could be different than those made on the personal account of a writer or journalist. Many writers utilize their personal accounts to share news as well. Retweeting and quote-tweeting are commonly used by writers on their personal accounts, as well as pointed political statements about current events. While potentially inappropriate on a company page, these tactics could be acceptable and effective on a personal page.

Twitter Controversy

Twitter has recently undergone a change in command, after being purchased by Elon Musk last year. Musk has altered and experimented with Twitter’s components, receiving both support and backlash.

One of the major changes is the introduction of Twitter Blue. Instead of receiving the blue checkmark as a verified account, the checkmark is received with the purchase of a Twitter subscription.

Another controversial decision by Musk was the reinstatement of previously restricted or suspended accounts. Many of these accounts were restricted due to being labeled as “fake news” or “misinformation.”

Because of the leadership changes and evolving aspects of Twitter, writers utilizing it should stay informed on its developments. Writing tactics and stylistic choices that may work now may not in the future. Just as writers have had to adapt to digital writing, they will have to adapt to follow the ever-evolving world of social media.