It's hard to have an objective standard. A curator and a censor are both trying to pick content they think is appropriate for their community.

There may be a difference in what they do when the community requests content not in the catalog. I would think most librarians would consider adding requested content or at least referring the patron to another library or other means to access it.

> There may be a difference in what they do when the community requests content not in the catalog.

My partner is a librarian and I can tell you they frequently add books they personally dislike or outright loathe (be it for content reasons or if they just think it's a bad book).

This can happen at the request of the community, or even if they believe somebody in the community might want said book.

This "curation is actually censorship" balderdash is completely out of touch with what library curation looks like and how librarians work and see their responsibility to their community

I work in the library space and know librarians from all over the US (world really), and what you say is absolutely true. They really do try and represent diverse viewpoints in the limited physical space and budgets they have.

I think the point is that whoever is in charge of curation can (and likely sometimes do) quietly and easily delete anything that says gay without anyone really noticing

Then those same people will often make a fuss when someone else tells them what they are allowed to curate