Please Stop Reading ebooks

[Anonymous No.15558476]

Physical books are superior to ebooks. You retain much more. They're faster and not as cumbersome. They all automatically have 300ppi and color and immediately offer a superior experience to the greatest ereader ever made. They're made in first-world countries. You don't need some depreciating Made-In-China electronic device just to read a book. The cost of books is not an excuse. You're paying for an ereader, and electronics depreciate quickly. Books are kept for life anyway, and contain such valuable information while benefiting and enriching your life that to take issue with the nominal price for a used book is irrational.

[Anonymous No.15558485]

>>15558476
ok boomer

[Anonymous No.15558494]

>>15558476
I'll stop reading ebooks once I get good enough at bookbinding to make physical copies of all the public domain/out of print/overpriced books I want to read.

[Anonymous No.15558502]

>>15558476
they are pretty expensive though

[Anonymous No.15558524]

>>15558476
I don't read lmfao
I reincarnate Socrates so he can give me lectures which I memorize on the spot

[Anonymous No.15558624]

Choosing to read an ebook instead of a physical book is like choosing to listen to a low quality MP3 through an old damaged phone speaker instead of listening to a live performance.

[Anonymous No.15558649]

>>15558624
>implying this applies to all books
some books are just text, no need for visuals
if you don't like it, just don't read it, stop baiting and suck cock

[Anonymous No.15558661]

>>15558476
Cope harder retarded fucking pseud

[Anonymous No.15558668]

>>15558649
It has nothing to do with visuals.

[Anonymous No.15558678]

>>15558624
And you too retard

[Anonymous No.15558744]

>>15558661
>>15558678
you're not funny

[Anonymous No.15558756]

>>15558476
As an avid lover of physical copies of things, I have two words for you:
Storage Space

[Anonymous No.15558887]

>>15558502
>>15558756
Nobody reads so much that cost and storage are a legitimate issue preventing them from reading.

[Anonymous No.15558911]

>>15558476
They are, but ebooks are much more convenient. I like having immediate access to a full library on the go.

[Anonymous No.15559051]

>>15558624
No, retard, it's not. An MP3 compresses the audio, making it impossible to make out some of the sounds and even whole instruments from a track. The substantive content of a book is the words it's made of, and you get exactly the same number and quality of words from a digital copy as you do for physical.
>>15558476
You like physical books because it's a totem of physical evidence you can show other people to prove you're not a pseud. But you are a pseud, because only pseuds give a shit about the medium through which the exact same content is delivered. Ulysses would be just as great written in the sky by an airplane as it is bound in a book, if you could read every word.

[Anonymous No.15559062]

>>15558624
Kill yourself retard

[Anonymous No.15559140]

The main problem with ebooks is they are not a persistent record. DRM can be used to deactivate books remotely. Indeed publishers and governments can "update" books to remove wrongthink without you even knowing. To have any hope of permanence, the whole thing has to be offline. But even then, circuitboards don't last a lifetime. File formats get deprecated. Batteries stop recharging.

If it's just a random book you're going to read once, an ebook is acceptable. But if you actually want to own the book, reread it and refer to it throughout your life, and pass it on to your heirs, get a real book.

[Anonymous No.15559178]

>>15559051
>and quality of words
You're wrong.

[Anonymous No.15559212]

>>15558887
*In this board

[Anonymous No.15559216]

>>15558476
I read most books on my kindle. If I like the book a lot I will buy a physical. It’s a good way for me to not waste my money buying a book that I don’t like

[Anonymous No.15559224]

>>15559140
You're right about file formats and digital storage having limited shelf lives, but ebook DRM is incredibly easy to crack and a lot of ebooks don't have any DRM at all.
There's a lot of stuff that either doesn't exist in physical form any more, or is prohibitively expensive because of publishing industry racketeering. Ebook repositories like archive.org, Gutenberg, libgen, and sci-hub aren't as good as hard copies, but they're a necessary stopgap.

[Anonymous No.15559257]

>>15559051
>You like physical books because it's a totem of physical evidence you can show other people to prove you're not a pseud.
I don't. I acknowledge that physical books are superior.

[Anonymous No.15559261]

>>15558476
I download PDFs to my iPod and print them out at my neighbor's printer while he's asleep.

[Anonymous No.15559263]

>>15558476
What books would you consider contain valuable information while benefiting and enriching your life?

[Anonymous No.15559268]

>>15558744
Oh did someone hurt your feelings little girl?

[Anonymous No.15559370]

>>15558887
One book is too expensive for me. Stop talking for everyone.

[Anonymous No.15559375]

>>15558624
People do that. It's far more convenient to have an mp3 than going to a live performance.

[Anonymous No.15559551]

>>15558485
>>15558494
>>15558502
>>15558524
>>15558649
>>15558661
>>15558678
>>15558756
>>15558911
>>15559051
>>15559062
>>15559216
>>15559224
>>15559261
>>15559263
>>15559268
>>15559370
>>15559375
Silence, thief.

[Anonymous No.15560628]

>>15558476
ebooks are better for certain uses. when i'm traveling, i don't haven enough room in my packs for 10+ paperback books. i do have room for a small solar charger and an ebook. i also purchase physical copies of my favourite novels, because i like to revisit them. to have such a black and white comic book take is retard behaviour

[Anonymous No.15560690]

>>15559140
>Buying ebooks

[Anonymous No.15561151]

No meme, isn't OP kind of right though? When I was still in university like 6 years ago, I remember one of my English professors sharing a study saying that people retain info better on physical books compared to digital (maybe ebooks/e-ink weren't included in that?). Has there been any new research contradicting this?

[Anonymous No.15561172]

>>15558476
Don't waste your time on these poorfag zoomers, OP. Real books are for connoisseurs only, just like vinyl.

[Anonymous No.15561194]

>>15561151
No, that's correct. Reading from a digital device gives you low levels of retention and comprehension as compared to reading real books. Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X18300101

[Anonymous No.15561426]

Unless you really fucking need to read the book (academic or journalistic work) and it's way too expensive or unavailable, get the ebook. I have way too many physical books as it is and I can afford to wait and save a few extra bucks for those expensive ones.

[Anonymous No.15561496]

>>15561194
It's a good study, but this bit here suggests that if you make an effort to process what you're reading, it doesn't actually make a difference, and that digital is inferior when and if people are habituated to reading from digital devices in a shallow manner.
Still, I'm less firmly in the pro-digital camp than I was ten minutes ago, so props for that.

[Anonymous No.15561540]

>>15561151
Of course he's correct. Everyone here is denying it because they're NEETs with zero lives and literally zero income. their only option is to purchase a $40 used ereader, or use their computer monitor, and download everything. They're too weird to even visit their library.

[Anonymous No.15561548]

>>15558494
thirdworlder here
it isn't that hard desu, and I generally suck at doing delicate stuff like that
still, if I'm feeling lazy I just print it with those shitty plastic covers
non fiction on an ereader is a no no

[Anonymous No.15561559]

>>15561548
How does the cost of printing out pdfs compare to buying physical books? I've been thinking about doing this for a while, but printers and ink can be expensive where I live.

[Anonymous No.15561756]

>>15561496
It still states that you clearly process less outside of a physical book, and need to compensate with more retention methods. If I'm going to spend hours reading a book, I don't want to via the inferior delivery system resulting in less retention. That's a huge waste of time.
Imagine someone who reads only physical books and they retain 80%, and then someone who reads only ebooks and retains 70%. Over 10 years, imagine retaining 10% less than someone else over ~500 books just because you chose the inferior method. You're effectively wasting 1 year of reading.
It's definitely higher than 10%, too. I find it obvious that I retain less and find it challenging to enter that alpha-wave state where you can study for 8 hours without a break, through an ebook. It's impossible. They're so slow, so cumbersome, and monitors are so irritating and distraction-prone, even a button on an ereader is a distraction, and the flashing screen, all of that brings you out of that state, and I'm not even going on about the natural devices by which we remember things we read with a physical book related to turning pages, manipulating the book, seeing the different layout on each page, some stain on one page, the crease on another, all of this aids retention and has nothing to do with distractions or speed; those problems already do not exist.

[Anonymous No.15561775]

>>15558476
nah lol

[Anonymous No.15561790]

This will always be a pointless argument.

[Anonymous No.15561801]

>>15558624
I hate live performances. The sound sucks.

[Anonymous No.15561806]

No. E-books are superior in every way.

[Anonymous No.15561827]

>>15561496
>>15561756
All the cited studies are about reading off of a computer monitor. It doesn't address e-readers at all.

[Anonymous No.15561859]

>>15561827
ereaders have their own issues

[Anonymous No.15561862]

>>15561859
For example?

[Anonymous No.15561874]

>>15558624
You're an absolute moron, there is no analog to digital information loss when converting between the two.

[Anonymous No.15561886]

>>15561862
see >>15561756
>slow
>cumbersome
>distractions
>lack any kind of dinstinctive visual aids or smells or feels, all important for retention
This is blatant and if you're not going to accept this then you're irrational.
>>15561874
It's not related to losing words on the display, but retaining fewer. The result is identical. Think clearly before posting.

[Anonymous No.15561898]

>>15558476
Tell me where I can get free copies of any physical book I want without having to leave my house and I will immediately burn my kindle and my 1500 book calibre library.

[Anonymous No.15561901]

>>15561886
>slow
Maybe 5 years ago. E-readers are more responsive than physical books now >cumbersome
I can fit your entire phsyical library 10 times over in my pocket. If this is cumbersome, than I don't know what isn't
>distractions
E-readers display text and nothing but
>muh smells
E-readers have their own unique sensory profile -- plastics, metals, glass, felts, buttons etc.

[Anonymous No.15561951]

>>15561901
>Maybe 5 years ago. E-readers are more responsive than physical books now
You're wrong. Imagine reading a book and seeing a distracting *FLASH* to bring you out of your current very focused state every time you want to turn the page.
>I can fit your entire phsyical library 10 times over in my pocket. If this is cumbersome, than I don't know what isn't
You can display, maybe, one page, it's slow, you need to press a button on an electronic device just to continue reading, completely lacking in anything unique to the book in feel.
>readers have their own unique sensory profile -- plastics, metals, glass, felts, buttons etc
Yes, and all of that is identical for every single ebook you read on it, therefore useless. You are not understanding what I'm writing. Frankly, I'm wasting my time educating you on something empirically supported in pedogogy. It's not an argument, and i'm not your private tutor or research assistant.

[Anonymous No.15561982]

>>15561898
>without having to leave my house
You have greater problems.

[Anonymous No.15561983]

>>15561951
>Imagine reading a book and seeing a distracting *FLASH*
Imagine reading a book and seeing a fat cheeto encrusted *HAND* every time you want to turn the page
>You can display, maybe, one page
Most e-readers allow you to change the font size and even the pagination itself
>Yes, and all of that is identical for every single ebook you read on it
Impying you can smell the difference between every single book you've ever read
>supported in pedogogy
Nope. The studies say fuck-all about e-readers

[Anonymous No.15561987]

>>15558476
Fine, YOU replace my 2000+ free ebooks from gutenberg with 2000+ paper copies of rare 19th and early 20th century volumes and I will read those instead.

[Anonymous No.15562005]

>>15561951
>i'm not your private tutor or research assistant.
Evidently not. Your grossly uninformed posts say that much.

[Anonymous No.15562013]

KEK no, I won't read 500+ pages books on paper while I'm in a line at the bank or something.

[Anonymous No.15562068]

>>15561983
>Nope. The studies say fuck-all about e-readers
You're clueless. I'm referring to accepted methods by which we retain information. Enriched stimuli is paramount to that, and an ereader or monitor, and the method by which you do read from those, lacks all of that entirely. As I've said, this is not an argument. I'm stating what pedagogy already knows and I've learned, yet you continue to argue, so i'm not wasting more of my time to entertain your stupidity. My input ends here.

[Anonymous No.15562074]

>>15562013
you also likely won't retain most stuff you read that way

[Anonymous No.15562076]

>i can't afford it so OP is wrong
wow, this place is retarded

[Anonymous No.15562127]

>>15562068
>I'm stating what pedagogy already knows
All that "pedagogy knows" is that an enriched/stimulating learning environment, in some cases, works. Once again, it says nothing about e-readers and the level of stimulation they offer compared to their physical counterpart. Your "argument" is non-existent and you are a fucking dumb cunt.

[Anonymous No.15562132]

>>15562074
Better than reading nothing at all.

[Anonymous No.15562134]

>>15562068
you believe in nofap too, right

[Anonymous No.15562140]

The monumental levels of cope from physical book fags itt
>e-readers are cumbersome!
lmaoo

[Anonymous No.15562141]

>>15562134
nah, he's right on this one.

[Anonymous No.15562147]

>>15561496
Glad you liked it, mate.

[Anonymous No.15562152]

>>15562141
nah he's not even close. he's trying to conflate computer monitors and ereaders, which is pretty stupid.

[Anonymous No.15562181]

>>15562152
it's virtually the same shit, you're reading something digital, not something phyisical. it doesn't have the same quality as a book just because you read with muh e-ink muh low brightness.

[Anonymous No.15562199]

>>15562181
lmao it's not even close to being the same as a monitor. and if anything they're of even higher quality than physical book pages (higher res, adjustable brightness etc.)

[Anonymous No.15562200]

>>15558887
I read 50-80 books a year (and have for years) and live in a small apartment. I'm not going to cover my whole flat in shelves for some fake sense of superiority.

>>15561951
>You're wrong. Imagine reading a book and seeing a distracting *FLASH* to bring you out of your current very focused state every time you want to turn the page.
How do you survive turning pages "in your very focused state"? And modern e-readers don't flash.
>You can display, maybe, one page, it's slow, you need to press a button on an electronic device just to continue reading, completely lacking in anything unique to the book in feel.
Unless you somehow manage to read two paper pages simultaneously, I fail to see the difference. You also flip a page instead of "pressing a button" now, grandpa.
>Yes, and all of that is identical for every single ebook you read on it, therefore useless.
Are you trying to imply you can distinguish all your books by smell or something? If not, then this point is moot.

[Anonymous No.15562220]

>>15562127
lol you could google and see he's right but you're a stubborn retard. i actually can't believe people ITT are arguing that reading from a fucking shitty kindle or your desktop is BETTER than having the actual book
>>15562152
he isn't though and lists different reasons, though i actually think they're basicaly for the same reasons overall. you're retarded btw
>>15562200
>How do you survive turning pages "in your very focused state"? And modern e-readers don't flash.
turning the page aids in the retention you fucking retard

something i'm noticing is that the retards who are arguing against paper books are not retaining anything ITT, how coincidental

[Anonymous No.15562235]

The built in dictionary is very useful. I also like the highlighting tool. The thing about physical books is that you are compelled to finish reading something even if you don’t enjoy it because you spent money on it.

[Anonymous No.15562238]

>>15562220
i've googled it, and read the studies he's linked -- they say nothing about ereaders. also his other reasons are retarded
>ereaders are cumbersome
lmao

[Anonymous No.15562239]

So many retards ITT fell for the OPs bait.

[Anonymous No.15562241]

>>15561886
>It's not related to losing words on the display
I was just pointing your shitty analogy between listening to mp3 music or listening live concert, you lose information when converting analog sounds do digital sounds, there is no loss of information like that with books.

>but retaining fewer
This is your own irrefutable claim with no clear evidence in reality, now fuck off and go jerk off with your paper.

[Anonymous No.15562243]

>>15562199
books print at 300ppi at a minimum already, and "adjustable brightness" is callled a fucking desk lamp. zero monitors exist with anything beyond 200ppi unless you have $3,500 for the 8K Ultrasharp, and you're ignoring all of the issues posted ITT. shut the fuck up moron.

[Anonymous No.15562244]

>>15562199
kek but the point is that you're not reading something tangible and your brain knows it. this goes beyond muh tech quality.

[Anonymous No.15562246]

>>15562220
>turning the page aids in the retention you fucking retard
The anti-e-reader anon was claiming otherwise. You guys have to get your narrative in order.

[Anonymous No.15562247]

>>15558476
I read 50-60 books a year, most being obscure non fiction being sold for $100+ online because it is out of print. I could go broke buying those or just download it for free in 30 seconds.

[Anonymous No.15562252]

>>15562239
it's call the truth. cope.

[Anonymous No.15562261]

>>15558624
Literally how? This comparison makes no sense

[Anonymous No.15562265]

>>15562244
an ereader is a physical, tangible, hand-held device, you absolute moron.

[Anonymous No.15562269]

Does this mean that if I print out and bind up this thread it will be a superior experience?

[Anonymous No.15562277]

>>15562243
>and "adjustable brightness" is callled a fucking desk lamp
So in addition to having to buy the books themselves and storage, you have to buy a desk lamp as well? Wow, physical book fags are cucked.

[Anonymous No.15562280]

>>15562235
>The built in dictionary is very useful
Well, you could just have a dictionary next to you. They're designed to search quickly. It is convenient simply press the word, but it's not a reason to use an ereader. Convenience does not equal a superior outcome.
>>15562239
Stop trying to psyop the thread with your stupidity. You can't afford it so you download 100 PDFs from libgen and never read them, and then enter this thread to feel better about your lack of funds with your sour grapes mentality.
>>15562261
Read an entire thread before replying.
>>15562265
keep ignoring points ITT that already destroy yours, like >>15561951. you're a worthless troll.

[Anonymous No.15562283]

>>15562277
And all the IKEA bookshelves and IKEA reading desk

[Anonymous No.15562289]

>>15562277
stop living in the dark fren. OP and frens are trying to enlighten you, cognitively, and literally by adding a light to your room.

[Anonymous No.15562297]

>>15562289
Consumerist cucks can't be enlightened.

[Anonymous No.15562308]

>>15562280
Convenience does make it superior. I’m not gonna carry an oxford dictionary with me wherever I go.

[Anonymous No.15562312]

>>15562280
>keep ignoring points
yes, i'll keep ignoring moronic points like:
>ebooks are cumbersome
lmao

[Anonymous No.15562335]

>>15562297
*purchases a shenzhen guangdong proprietary eink monopoly consumer electronic device*
>OMG THEY UPGRADED IT :O?!?
*purchases another*
>>15562308
they fit in your pocket though. you're never making it....

[Anonymous No.15562347]

>>15562181
ink is physical retardo

[Anonymous No.15563378]

I've never seen an inteillgent person use ebooks.

[Anonymous No.15563385]

>>15563378
To be fair, I've never seen an intelligent person use regular books either.

[Anonymous No.15563660]

Used books and library books are fucking gross

[Anonymous No.15563714]

>>15559551
big cope moral fag.

ebook download goes BBBBRRRRRRRRR

[Anonymous No.15563750]

>>15563660
You can print the ebook.

[Anonymous No.15563827]

>>15563660
They are. I always cum on the outside of the books i get at the library. I close the book and spurt it all over the edges of the pages so that you all will certainly put your fingers on it as you turn the pages. When I jerk off I picture a dumpy girl in glasses licking her fingers perperatory to turning the pages of the very tome waiting in my left hand for me to dob the cum onto it like toothpaste. Sometimes I cum too much and have to rub the excess out past the top and bottom corners of the book. If theres a little ribbon to use as a bookmark you can bet your ass I pinch it with cum laden fingers and run them down it's length to press my ejaculate into the sleek fabric. I do actually read these book which gives me time to repeat the process many times over, until a given book is so well spackled with so many coats it might well impregnate some poor lady if she happens to become aroused by a particular passage and stick those same fingers she used to peel back the pages up her clunge. My most recent victim is a copy of American Pastoral by Phillip Roth.

[Anonymous No.15563854]

You should stop reading books altogether

[Anonymous No.15564032]

>>15561559
here, infinite jest costs nearly 35 bucks with shipping (I don't live in the capital)
printing it costed me 4 dollars
because of this, I only buy used books at a fair price or print them (especially with new books)

[Anonymous No.15564057]

>>15564032
and in the case of easy reading short books and twenty pages essays, I don't bother printing them, I just read them on the PC (except when I'm already printing a lot of pages so it is cheaper). Maybe it would be comfier having an e-ink device for this, but the price isn't justifiable.

[Anonymous No.15564232]

You are all retarded and this discussion is pointless.

[Anonymous No.15564264]

>>15564232
>using comic sans in the infographic designed to show how smart you are

[Anonymous No.15564275]

>>15563854
based desu

[Anonymous No.15564280]

>>15564232
have never heard of any below the first two

[Anonymous No.15564425]

>>15564280
heh

[Anonymous No.15564800]

I have OCD so physical books are actually very gross to me, even new books due to the ink and smell. I think that they're superior, though, the convenience of downloading ebooks is extreme.

[Anonymous No.15564843]

>>15562347
yes, in a real book.

[Anonymous No.15564858]

>>15564800
I don’t even have OCD I just know 8/10 used books have been in the Bathroom with some dude taking a monster dump

[Anonymous No.15564989]

>>15562220
Pressing the button aids in retention, retard

[Anonymous No.15564997]

>>15561987
Telling that this post doesn't have a reply from you, OP. You nigger.

[Anonymous No.15565017]

>>15564997
See >>15562076

[Anonymous No.15565393]

>>15564989
It doesn't.

[Anonymous No.15565416]

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-18/your-paper-brain-and-your-kindle-brain-arent-same-thing

[Anonymous No.15565670]

>>15565017
Except that greentext is correct

[Anonymous No.15565677]

>>15565393
It does.

[Anonymous No.15565795]

>>15565416
This is clearly based on retards not being able to differentiate between their smartphone twitter feed and their e-readers

[Anonymous No.15565857]

>>15565677
It doesn't because the button is identical for every single thing you read. All books are different.

[Anonymous No.15565862]

>>15558624
This, except in reverse.

[Anonymous No.15565863]

>>15558476
It have been shown that people actually read a lot more with an ereader than with regular books though. You're more likely to have longer reading sessions etc.

[Anonymous No.15566209]

>>15565863
I've never seen this.

[Anonymous No.15566964]

>>15563827

[Anonymous No.15567320]

I just want a Paperwhite with a 7" screen, USB-C, and color e-ink.

IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK???

[Anonymous No.15567333]

>>15558476
ok, I'll stop right this moment. I also stop reading anything digital. Ii wgf sd f wefw

[Anonymous No.15567717]

>>15565863
I've done both, didn't notice a difference except I can't write notes on e-ink and it is a tad annoying lacking the visual aspect of the paragraph's location (like when you remember something important was in a certain place of a certain page).

[Anonymous No.15567766]

>>15565857
All books have the same page turning method.