One argument I've heard that people try to use as proponents of these datacenters is that they bring in employment in construction and electrical engineering even if it's temporary. Their argument falls apart very quickly when it's pointed out that because of the specialization many owners of these locations hire specific firms and contractors willing to travel across the nation for the work instead of hiring a local construction company or an on-site engineer. Some locations are managed entirely remotely where one engineer handles multiple sites, and the only people actually there are security, maintenance, and cleaning staff who might also be traveling contractors that move between locations in a circuit. That's like six people for something with a footprint the size of fifty family homes.

This is a good take.

Put a different way, some companies have made a lot of money with business models that hinge on victims never being able to reach a human.

Those same companies want to set up phone centers in the neighborhoods of the people they’ve neglected that also will not take their calls.

Town hall it is.

The world is large. There is still infinite room left on earth closer than space.

The reason the DC want to be placed in proximity to people is to get access to the infrastructure, electricity grid and roads. I think the next natural step is to just put the DC further away from existing infrastructure and pay for the connect, not move to space.

> I've been interested in understanding what would make people more amenable to data centers.

We've been slowly boiling alive in the reality that the tech industry has long been evolving to hurt us more and help us less each year. We'd be neutral or welcoming to data centers if we didn't know that storing and processing all that data was going to be used against us.

They could give all nearby residents free/subsidized solar + battery for their homes.

This empowers people making them feel less beholden to rising energy prices, and gives the data center more energy for its needs as the grid is freed up.

It would help a ton if they'd pull some strings to get more power added to the grid than they consume so they don't cost residents and local businesses money. Or they could pay to subsidize residential usage and keep rates low.

There's no good reason to build datacenters in many of the places people are trying to build them. Look at all the ones they're trying to build in Phoenix or Tucson, Arizona, or in New Mexico. These are deserts! They're the exact opposite of a place where it makes sense to build a datacenter.

It's not enough to offer incentives. You have to explain why you even need to do it in the first place, and the answer better not be "we want money."

To start, there is a lot of misinformation out there and the NDAs that surround data center construction and operation don't help. People will cite water consumption as a huge problem when modern hyperscalers use substantially less water because they're now using closed loop cooling instead of evaporative cooling. You'll see people cite noise because they saw a video online of a crypto mining grifter who bought a bunch of shipping containers and haphazardly threw together air cooled mining rigs with 80mm fans screaming away. I even saw one video of a woman who claimed data centers gave her diabetes despite the fact that she was obese.

Amazon and other companies already have job training programs because they cannot find enough skilled labor to build and operate their data centers. The number of jobs commonly cited are comically lower than what is common to operate a modern hyperscaler. In my experience, hyperscalers often have at least 100-200 people on site to operate the data center and I've seen more than 1000 people on a site when the data center is under construction.

The real issue, as always, are the local governments and utilities that sellout out the citizens and fail to create and enforce building codes. The governments should be using the demand for data centers to partner with the companies and have them pay to modernize and fix the power grid. They should be using them to help subsidize green energy initiatives among other things and fund other projects to benefit the community.

The inconvenient truth is that the problem with data centers lies with the people in the communities who continue to elect politicians who, time and time again, make decisions counter to the best interests of their community. Data centers just happen to be the latest scapegoat to distract people from corrupt politicians and an community that is not civically engaged enough to hold their politicians accountable.

Data centers are fundamentally a net negative to the region, value extraction towards the oligarchs.

Why would anyone want them?

The only thing that'd change my mind would be full communal ownership in addition to everything you've said.

I'm pretty sure it's mostly ideological problems with AI, rather than any concrete impact on the communities data centers are near. Data centers are just not that big or impactful a structure, and they're also not particularly new. What is new is effective AI being a force visible to the lives of people, including activists of various stripes who who are threatened by it and want to work against it by attacking data centers.

Honestly, I think it's possible that there isn't really organic opposition to data centers from people living in communities near them at all - but instead, there is opposition to them from people like Mother Jones magazine journalist Sophie Hurwitz, who is therefore motivated to write an article reporting on Maine banning data centers while framing it as a reasonable policy, and implying that this is a reasonable thing for other local governments considering data center bans to enact.

I note that every person cited in this article is some kind of national-level ideological actor - a member of a pro-data-center lobbying group; a researcher affiliated with the Federation of American Scientists which is a NGO headquartered in Washington D.C.; the head of Good Jobs First, which is another Washington D.C.-headquartered nonprofit; and several well-known national politicians who are already known for being suspicious of the tech industry.

There's no quote from any ordinary person in Maine who talks about some concrete negative impact of a data center near them - the closest thing is a link to an article with a quote from the Maine state representative who sponsored the bill, which states: "“It’s not that there’s no place for data centers in Maine,” said Democratic Rep. Melanie Sachs, who sponsored the measure. “Frankly, the tradeoffs have not been shown to be of benefit to our ratepayers, water usage or community benefit in terms of economic activity.”. The idea that data centers use a particularly large amount of water is basically complete bullshit promulgated by national-level prestige journalists (https://www.andymasley.com/writing/the-ai-water-issue-is-fak...), which makes me skeptical that this is an issue brought to Sachs' attention from her local constituents.

Data centers really do use a lot of electrical power, but the article has the quote "n Maine, electricity bills have already increased by 58 percent on average over the last 5 years. Much of that price jump is likely due to the state’s reliance on natural gas—but some Mainers fear that data center buildout will only increase their expenses.", which is the sort of thing you'd write if you were trying to associate a rise in electricity costs with data centers without being able to demonstrate that data centers are actually causing electric power costs to increase for ordinary people.