> My conversations make me wonder if the technical content of data center deals is mostly beside the point. Closed-loop cooling systems? “I don’t believe them.” Paying millions in taxes? “I don’t believe them.” Creating a thousand jobs? “I don’t believe them.” I hear a reflexive skepticism of every claim.
It's not reflexive; it's evidenced. Regardless of what big tech promises, or potential mitigations, everyone knows what tech companies do now. It's not a generalised small-town lack of trust in big city folks, it's a direct response to decades of extractive behaviour by the same companies and people.
Essentially, I think there's a proximal reputational problem for AI companies, which the article calls out, but the ultimate problem is factual. It's not an education/communication/negotiation issue, because the real problem is the underlying reality. The wolf at the door being distrusted is because it's a wolf, not PR.
These people, these communities, have been promised these same things before (or things adjacent to them) and have seen them not deliver, or even make their situation worse.
This is especially true of the tax income and job generation elements. The estimates provided as part of the deal are utterly divorced from reality- people know it and refuse to take part in the kayfabe that surrounds it.
Well of course it's because the companies think they don't have to give a good deal. That they can get away with it.
One wonders if at this point they would have saved money not trying to fuck people over to get what they wanted. I hope so. The ideal world has companies doing things the honest way because it's honest, but I'd settle for them doing it that way because they're economically incentivized to do so.
HN commenters favouring data centers never seem to address this either. It appears they just don't get it
If someone does not like "AI" software nor the people behind it, then it makes little sense to argue about electricity, water, eminent domain, etc.
Big Tech founders have claimed that the public "trusts" them because the public uses ("chooses") their software. But does this amount to "real world" trust
Society did decay because of cellphones but it wasn't anything to do with the cellphone companies. The towers always were exactly what the cellphone companies said they were.
The problem with conspiracy theories is not that they're based on a lack of trust, but that they're not rational. Sometimes a lack of trust is perfectly rational.
Cell towers don't actually fry your brains. Steam powered trains don't move so fast you suffocate. However, the big tech CEOs are absolutely going to take your data and use it against you. They are going to build data centers that harm your community. The fear here is reasonable and evidenced.
This isn't unique to AI, but AI is the current iteration of the same problem. Sometimes people distrust outsiders because they're star-bellied sneetches, but sometimes they distrust them because they're the British empire. You can't treat all distrust as unreasoning.
Rationality isn't some sort of absolute parameter, it's determined wrt available information. And with information coming from outside it's certainly an issue of trust.
FWIW such unconditional claim as "DC will harm your community" is a shiny example of this, as you don't even care to talk about a particular DC, and obviously cases (community problems, and interests, and the way a DC placed or build) can vary a lot. Apparently, you just don't believe them at all, don't you?
>You can't treat all distrust as unreasoning.
I don't. I just noticed that arguments you believe are central are very stretchy, and can 'prove' anything, including conspiracy theories.
But a data center wouldn't help. It would raise electric prices and doesn't really employ people.
It's kind of like one industry that is in the area - there's a company that grows huge amounts of cranberries but its mostly automated. As far as I know only three people work on this huge site. They let the cranberries grow, flood the area when they're ready. The cranberries float to the top for robots to skim the surface and harvest them. The humans just move things around for the robots.
Even just doing what Northern Virginia does and lowering people’s property taxes gives homeowners more disposable income/ lowers prices for renters which is a start.
https://buildermuse.com/economy/every-state-offering-data-ce...
> No one wants to live near one, especially not doctors and teachers with young families who can choose to live anywhere.
Northern Virginia is one of the top locations for the kind of people who “can live anywhere” and is the world capital of data centers. And part of that appeal in NoVA is low property taxes due to data centers paying taxes.
There is some real aspects of the data center debate but I don’t think your engaging with them
> Northern Virginia is one of the top locations for the kind of people who “can live anywhere” and is the world capital of data centers.
People live in NoVa despite data centers, not because of them. Its proximity to DC makes it intrinsically attractive. Towns in rural nowhere don't have the same innate draw and I don't see how datacenters provide it.
I think the general populace has pretty irrational political stances. For example in NYC where I live "gentrification is bad because it will raise the rent" is a fairly common stance, despite the cause of high rent being restricted housing supply. There's a popular case of residents being OK with a truck stop but blocking any new housing [1].
Congestion pricing was incredibly unpopular and controversial, despite most New Yorkers not being drivers and the policy being very effective in many other cities. Now it's extremely popular.
There is also just a lot misinformation that goes around, the water aspect being one of them. Data center use something like 1/8th the water of the California Almond industry [2]. There is some limited indications anti data center sentiment is spread by US adversaries [3].
[1]. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/18/nyregion/harlem-truck-dep... [2]. https://tech.yahoo.com/science/articles/data-centers-less-wa... [3]. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/09/business/china-russia-ai-...
if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle
Some data centers are paying lots of taxes and upgrading local grids, others are bribing local politicians or lobbying for abatements.
That is a much more substantive discussion than blanket anti growth.
I believe you've met a Mike Garage:
https://x.com/japan_nobunaga/status/2083940637921943803
They don't always accept payment.
On the other hand, my city gave the local data centers big tax breaks to come here. In the last couple years my property taxes have increased significantly along with my electricity bill. It seems obvious that I’m subsidizing the local data center. There’s probably a couple dozen people who work there, so it’s not a realistic employment opportunity for me or anyone I know. I’m not anti-tech at all, but I wish the city hadn’t made the deal they did. Perhaps big tech could be less parasitic and contribute beneficially to society?
As long as there is no corruption involved, I do not see what is wrong with big tech choosing a project site where the cost is minimal.
If there are many poor rural cities which compete for data center deals, this seems to me like an efficient free market.
If public opinion swings, will this not influence politicians, and force big tech to provide better benefits in these deals?
That kind of statement really bothers me. Is it measuring the magnetic fields or RF emissions? If it's RF, what frequency? If the EMF reader is picking up radio waves, I'm not exactly concerned. Visible light would be weird. X-rays would be very concerning. Is it just picking up the 50/60Hz power line? That's all around you in your house anyway. If you just don't like power lines, say that
> When I visited DC in February to start researching the brewing AI backlash, I found that the top two uniting issues were kids’ safety and data centers.1 These were very different concerns from those I hear in San Francisco—a city with no kids and no data centers
(Remember, in a shovel rush, sell casting machines)
A data center is a big grey box that sits there humming quietly, and that's it. They do require power and lots of it, but unlikely steam engines they'll happily use solar, nuclear or anything else.
It was very loud inside, but you couldn't hear it from outside unless the power failed and the generators came on.
Thats what anti-AI activists say. A decibel meter is about $20. For some reason the people in those videos never have one.
For perspective, the inside of your home is probably about 40. When I turn on my box fan it's about 55.
That said they can be loud when the generators are running. It's possible that when the grid can't keep up the volume goes up, but thats not meant to be a long term state.
In this case it's a constant 60dB metallic whine. I would be livid if they built this near my home.
Force them to either install mufflers and proper exhausts on their generators or build their own power infrastructure. They don't now because nobody makes them and it would cost money.
It's like when California "destroyed the entire economy" by raising minimum wage. All the jobs are still there, prices are mostly the same. The only thing that moved were the goal posts.
EDIT: recently I read about (I guess on HN) a new planned Amazon datacenter that was super environment-friendly. So in fact it might eventually be possible to create silent DCs but we'll see how this turns out.
As much as I doubt that spreading of the data centers is a good thing, noise is not the weapon to wield. Unless we are talking the center of a quaint town. And possibly not even then.
I am interested to learn where the 96db comes from.
I see only vague claims about up to 96db inside of a server rack, but could not locate a concrete measurement or method used to determine this number.
A decibel meter is about $20 on Amazon, often cheaper. I dont know what their agenda is, but they've got one.
So you're saying the UK should never have built a railway system? It sounds like tech is right.
I tend to like not fearing starvation every year, not fearing freezing to death every year and not having the vast majority of my kids die. Industrialization led to all that.
Trains still do that today. They cut a locality in half with only certain crossing points being allowed. But at least enough people ride the train they can feel it's worthwhile.
JFC I wish people on HN would read a history book.
There's now a gargantuan amount of documentation about their impact: - insane noise levels 24/7, you can hear them even at miles away - virtually no jobs brought to the place, besides some construction work early on - massive drain of local resources - massive eye sore
Like, I'm not against data centers per se, but you tell me they building one few miles from my house, I'm listing it the day I hear it and escaping as far as I can.
Can you share a link or two to this? Hearing a data center from miles away sounds suspicious.
- AI is going to take your jobs
- We need to build our data centers for this job stealing tool
- We need to build so quickly that there’s no time to do accurate assessments of what this will do to water or power supplies
Turns out people don’t like that. Who could have guessed? Anyone not living in a bubble.
Rejection (or fear) of AI translating into rejection of the physical infrastructure that supports it is perfectly reasonable.
I suspect they wouldn't
And people opposing data centers today who are opposing unfettered data center creations will not look any *more* foolish than those who opposed the things you cite.
Nuclear plants are being forced to shut down in this heat wave, due to low river levels, as they don't have enough head pressure to run their cooling pumps and if they had different pumps their waste heat would sterilize the river. I'm sure China has no qualms about sterilising rivers but the next, hotter, heat wave will dry them up anyway, and they'll still have to turn the plants off.
https://www.wired.com/2012/01/0104edison-uses-ac-to-kill-ele...