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.