> There are no objective concerns to be met

Are you sure? Most of the objections I've seen center around environmental impact and effect on residential energy pricing in the surrounding area. Both of these seem to be to be objectively measurable.

> the data centers will be built elsewhere in more politically impoverished states

What does "politically impoverished" mean? I'd say more "politically permissive" states would make more sense here. Red states are not impoverished of politics, they just have different politics.

▲

pj_mukh 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

"environmental impact and effect on residential energy pricing"

Sooo, how does that change in New York in a year? You've mostly re-inforced my point. And specifically the bill doesn't use any automatic re-enablement criteria, so data centers are basically dead in the state.

Realistically, this is a canard, AI scares people and environmental impact is a lever to use to stop it. Ask yourself this: if this was a new Ford plant (dirtier, also uses a lot of energy), would we be having this conversation?

I actually do mean politically impoverished. Banning Data centers is a horsehoe populism issue, the right wing loves it too. The data center builders will just have to find municipalities with less people and/or a less engaged political atmosphere aka politically impoverished. They mostly already have.

	▲	dlubarov 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah - there seem to be a lot of pretenses which don't actually justify banning a particular industry. If environmental concerns were the real issue, we'd be talking about how to tweak those regulations. If power distribution was the real issue, we'd be talking about the economics of power companies and their infrastructure upgrades. It's strange how we're suddenly talking about things like illegal concrete dumping, as if it was somehow specific to datacenters, and not 99% of buildings built in the past century.