Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout

Note Detail

Reply to @Captain_Wet_Beard@poa.st
mothball蛾玉 (*Latest Fad)@moth_ball@shitposter.world (2026-08-20 05:32:09)
@Captain_Wet_Beard @lain @mushroom_soup @Nudhul @sun if destroying the book makes the scanning even 1% more cost effective they'll do it
---Reply---
Captain Comfy@Captain_Wet_Beard@poa.st (2026-08-20 07:05:27)
@moth_ball @lain @mushroom_soup @Nudhul @sun It doesn't though, old books have weak spines so it's already trivial to scan them. The destruction is a concious choice for other reasons. I could see there being a tax write off purpose, but I doubt its the only one. Perhaps the destruction itself is seen as desirable to them.

---Replies---

Blurry Moon@sun@shitposter.world (2026-08-20 07:26:02)
@Captain_Wet_Beard @lain @mushroom_soup @Nudhul @moth_ball you cut the spine off and feed it to a document feeder if you're doing more than one book. and the thread already established they are legally obligated to destroy the book, that wasn't just their choice