> It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

— Upton Sinclair

"It's only a crime because it's against the law." - someone, inevitably

> Yes, and big part of it is public is ok with that. For example, did you protest while Uber was breaking many local laws while growing?

I never supported what Uber, either. Why would you assume anyone did?

Are you really out here stanning white collar crimes? The reason this is ok is because people aren’t angry enough about it? Your comment absolutely boggles the mind.

Lots of people did complain or actively take steps to punish them for lawbreaking, yeah?

What? Do you think that public opinion drives prosecution decisions?

If that were true, no one would go to jail for marijuana possession.

> However government officials might find themselves in a courtroom having to demonstrate how they applied the law equally…

I wish I lived in your world.

> government officials might find themselves in a courtroom having to demonstrate how they applied the law equally

The government has no obligation to apply the law equally, although they are prohibited from applying the law unequally to achieve certain discriminatory aims.

Or even state vs local. These developers have a LOT of money and often use it to pass state level legislation that prevents cities or counties from having a say in these projects.

Take Hood County where a Texas senator prevented them from considering a construction pause. Or West Virginia’s Power Generation and Consumption Act which completely banned local government oversight. Or Georgia’s HB 1059 Siting Mandates. I could go on and on but the point here is the playing field is not level. These data centers often have the power to completely skirt local zoning laws and regulation. And even when they do it illegally, there's rarely any consequences

> The Colossus I Data Center was brought online in 122 days from breaking ground to operation. Some hail that as an achievement, but others (like myself) see it as a brutal pace to avoid having to answer pesky questions like "How will this affect the nearby area?" and "What sort of mitigation plans to do you have for the data center's waste?" The data center is powered by dozens of unpermitted gas turbines, which they initially refused to acknowledge were running until journalists and groups used thermal imaging to prove they were indeed on and spewing toxins into the air (including smog, formaldehyde, and other nasty things). This resulted in a suit from the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) on behalf of the NAACP for violations of the Clean Air Act. Their claim was that the company operated without public oversight or accountability for these illegal constructions and sought legal stoppage until proper accounting can be done of the effects of said turbines.

This is what I'm talking about. A non-profit and random journalists shouldn't be the ones holding them accountable in the first place. And a "lawsuit" is hardly accountability either. People need to go to prison for white collar crime.

> Enter the Federal Government and the Department of Justice, who pushed the courts to dismiss the suit as a matter of national security, stating that the xAI models were needed for "artificial-intelligence innovation that supports the Department of War’s military operations." So, residents are left without legal means of contesting these developments, barring individual claims and damages.

And this is the reason why a "lawsuit" isn't accountability. When the company can just pay some politicians to get it dismissed.