Actual evidence for or against either motivation would involve investigating the journalist's notes, search history,... and we're obviously not getting any of that so all we have to work with is our priors. Here are mine:

-The amount of deforestation discussed in this article is miniscule compared to the global amount. The probability of the journalist investigating or the editor of the outlet deciding to platform this specific case by uniformly random chance is small.

-Negative news stories about datacenters, AI, tech, etc. are extremely common and highly engaging. The probability of a journalist/editor deciding to specifically seek out an anti-datacenter story is high.

Given these two priors, what do you think the journalists most likely motivations are (or do you disagree with my claims)? You were able to deduce my own motivations for posting, can you do the same for the news outlet?

And in order to not be a bad faith actor myself, let me clarify my motivations for posting: I am here to express dissatisfaction with an unreasonable amount of anti-datacenter bias in the media.

▲

y-c-o-m-b 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Your motivation here is a bias in itself though.

Do a search for "Google Finnish Trees" over the last 24 hours. Almost all of the articles are sensationalist titles that may lend some support to what you're saying, EXCEPT for a handful like the BBC and this specific TechSpot one; where they have remained neutral and factual.

Here is the original source they point to in THIS techspot article even: https://lvv.fi/-/lupa-ja-valvontavirasto-on-pyytanyt-selvity...

If you look at that source, you can see it lists Sari Myllyoja, Head of Unit, Environmental Department, Communities and Infrastructure Unit. Does that seem like someone out to spread anti-datacenter news to you or someone just doing their job in environmentalism?

Your mission may not necessarily be wrong overall, but it is clearly wrong in this instance and context.

▲

ion_trapper an hour ago | parent [-]

Let's agree to disagree. I don't see sensationalism as necessary to acting in bad faith. If anything, the veneer of disinterested inquiry can be more sinister (what is sometimes called "concern trolling"). Choosing to platform a certain story is a choice. Choosing what context to present and withhold is also a choice. "Google cleared 0.000...% of Finnish forest" is also a factual title.

	▲	y-c-o-m-b an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think you're moving goalposts. You posed this scenario, did you not: > Start an investigation into deforestation, leading to the discovery of the deforestation caused by this datacenter? I've provided evidence to suggest that's exactly what it was in this case. The head of the environmental department found evidence of deforestation and started an inquiry. Techspot (and many other outlets) picked it up because it mentions Google and they are a Tech publication. They provided a neutral view of the matter, sans bias. Those are the facts.

▲

kalaksi 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The amount of deforestation discussed in this article is miniscule compared to the global amount.

By that logic, why not cut half of Finland's forests? I'm sure they won't mind since it's such a small area globally after all. And I think there are also other nuances than just net loss of forest.

	▲	y-c-o-m-b an hour ago \| parent [-]
		There's also another hypothetical angle to consider which is that Google's egregious deforestation here may be somewhat self-limited due to prior knowledge of Finnish environmental regulations being more strictly enforced. "It is easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission" comes to mind. Imagine then what Google could be doing in other areas of the world where they can freely pave through the land without such oversight. The cumulative destruction then becomes a much larger issue than this "small" chunk of land.