| Right, but even then, why would we not discuss noise pollution? The water figure folks cite is wildly manipulated, it really confuses me why a known piece of misinformation is so routinely used. Water usage for global data center cooling is under 30B gallons of water. You only get to the 300B number by including the estimated water required for the power generation. Data centers are the only technology where we include estimated water usage for power generation under general water requirement. And even with that fudging, global water usage by data centers is a magnitude less water than just the leaky pipes in the United States. There are much stronger points to be made without resorting to misinformation. I think points around zoning + noise pollution is something that everyone, besides our most ardent AI stan, can get behind. Every pro-ai person I know are all pretty happy to say that data center should not be built in residential zoning |
| |
| ▲ | Groxx an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Noise pollution is definitely being discussed: https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2026-04-2... There are many reasons to not like these things nearby (anywhere it affects power or water too). And on top of that they've been "somehow" getting massive incentives and tax cuts, despite bringing in very little money or employment, which costs the area even more in future years. It's everything combined, and pushback has been somewhat successful. Success in a protest tends to help bring more success to the same protest elsewhere. | | |
| ▲ | duplessitous an hour ago | parent [-] | | > The whole data center heat/water thing is like not even in the top 100 risks/issues related to AI, but it's all people seem to care about. Why is that? Another commenter said the concerns about heat/water were because they were being built next to their houses, and I responded to that. I am specifically asking this person why they are touting water usage and not noise pollution as the main problem. I was not asking generically why no one talks about it But, had I been, it is not all of these things because one of those things is abject misinformation - water usage is not a real problem and touting it as the issue hurts the protests. 30B gallons of water globally for data center cooling is 100x less than the leaky pipes in just the United States If data centers are such a big issue that we must stop them, communicating that without lying is the protestor's responsibility. You'll never have a successful protest if it is motivated by falsifiable information and water usage is still the number one thing I see written about and spoken about my protestors. It is impossible to get on board so long as that misinformation is front and center of most arguments | | |
| ▲ | Groxx an hour ago | parent [-] | | It can be an issue for the community in the same watershed, as well as being affected by what they do with any waste water. There have been quite a lot of extremely-drawn-out lawsuits about them drawing more than claimed, dumping hot water into streams and damaging the ecosystem, and polluting other water sources by dumping dirty water into drinking water affecting areas. I agree the total usage isn't particularly large, and any "they'll use up all the fresh water everywhere" FUD is flat out wrong. But it can be a large jump for an area, and they've broadly shown themselves to be incredibly amoral and willing to fight legal battles with infinite money just because they can. They are not good neighbors. | | |
| ▲ | duplessitous an hour ago | parent [-] | | Agreed, it can. And by reserving that argument for when it is an actual problem, it strengths the overall position > There have been quite a lot of extremely-drawn-out lawsuits about them drawing more than claimed, dumping hot water into streams and damaging the ecosystem, and polluting other water sources by dumping dirty water into drinking water affecting areas. And I support strict EPA guidelines and heavy fees for violators! I just think that we should keep the conversation clear and not introduce facts that can be easily overturned as it moves the conversation away from impact and to the argument being made | | |
| ▲ | Groxx an hour ago | parent [-] | | By then it is too late, plus they never pay enough in damages. And the EPA does not have teeth currently, and damage will be done while fixing that too. So people fight by pattern recognition: abnormally incentivized and extremely large? Kill it with fire immediately. It's mostly reasonable and more effective than anything else at the moment. | | |
| ▲ | duplessitous an hour ago | parent [-] | | Right, but misinformation is ineffective as it forces the conversation to revolve around the misinformation and not the topic we were attempting to discuss. If we need an example, we need look no further than this thread Beyond this, it is my opinion that people are cowards. The few who care about this issue enough to perform terroristic actions won't spur any sort of meaningful change in the general population because the general population is not made up of extremists. The general population will not do anything that endangers their lives no matter how much they praise another for doing so Luigi kills a healthcare CEO. Endless chatter about how this is the end for big pharma, the people are rising up, they better count their days because the people are paying attention. Nothing has happened since but more dead people due to denied insurance claims. But there sure are a lot of people talking about how another Luigi will show up sometime soon An arsonist burned down a large warehouse. Endless chatter about how this is the end for big corporations screwing us at the register, how workers will rise up and burn even MORE if they don't get treated better. Nothing has happened since to these big businesses. There is no tiktok trend for large scale arson, no worker unionization. Nothing changed but boy do people talk about i I would rather solve it politically by strengthening the EPA. We may just disagree here and that is fine. | | |
| ▲ | Groxx an hour ago | parent [-] | | Honestly, anything that gets people paying attention to stuff that has been building for decades is good in my book. I agree that'll be a much better end-state to be in, but is it the best right now? ... idk. We're in an increasingly blatant "smash and grab" phase for major corporations right now, and they need to be stopped quickly. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nemomarx an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I've seen lots of talk about noise pollution with them? There's infrasound concerns and etc. No idea how real that impact is, but it's apparently measurable for a few miles away. It mostly needs zoning as you say and maybe require each project put down a bond to supply a power plant expansion / new plant that covers their projected energy uses, imo. That sorts out a lot of issues. Maybe put some kinda tax on them and use it to pay for local infrastructure or schools for PR too | | |
| ▲ | hylaride an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm not saying the noise pollution concerns aren't real, but these are often the same people who had "concerns" with 5G. Most datacenters I've been to around the world are barely noticeable. Most of them are in warehouse districts and the AC chillers are barely noticeable over the chillers on other nearby buildings. Often, they WANT to be nondescript. That being said, I've not been to any of these new ones which are both significantly larger and also can have onsite turbines that run all the time and not just during power outages. | |
| ▲ | duplessitous an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The whole data center heat/water thing is like not even in the top 100 risks/issues related to AI, but it's all people seem to care about. Why is that? Another commenter said the concerns about heat/water were because they were being built next to their houses, and I responded to that. I am specifically asking this person why they are touting water usage and not noise pollution as the main problem. I was not asking generically why no one talks about it |
| |
| ▲ | holdupagain an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | "residential zoning" looks like an intentional misunderstanding of the problem. Putting one outside of "residential zoning" surely isn't a problem even if it robs an entire residential zone of power, right? Or then governments can't just re-allocate residential zones to industrial zones to get those juicy deals, right? The way you're using language here is putting the problem so close to the edge that abuse, ignoring the quality of lives of residents, would seem just so logical. | | |
| ▲ | duplessitous an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Or then governments can't just re-allocate residential zones to industrial zones to get those juicy deals, right? Which is why we need laws around where data centers can and cannot be built. Something I clearly alluded to in my first comment. Do you want to make up things I never said such that you can make some snarky comment and feel good about yourself or have a real conversation? If it is the former, fuck off. | | |
|
|
