Aside from comparisons of direct local harm and number of jobs, a steel mill produces a useful product. A data center produces AI slop, mass surveillance, an assist to hideously immoral wars, an increase in mental health issues and alienation, and cements the control over all of us of a faceless, anonymous bunch of racist psychopaths. A steel mill produces steel.
That makes sense, and I think democracy and accountability may actually be the more important distinction here.
It suggests that opposition isn’t necessarily a reaction to acceleration itself, or even primarily to inequality. The mobilizing question may be much more direct: who gets to decide that this transformation happens here, who bears its consequences, and who can actually be held accountable for those decisions?
In that sense, perhaps what people are reacting against is not simply being “left behind,” but a form of acceleration without agency.
That’s a useful correction to how I’ve been thinking about the problem. Thank you.
52 interviews is a fascinating dataset. I’d be very curious whether you heard a distinction between opposition to data centers themselves and something broader: a sense that this round of technological acceleration is happening around people rather than carrying them with it.
Reading Brian’s piece pushed me toward that question from a different direction. I just published an essay called “The Acceleration Gap: On Speed Without Passengers,” comparing the very different attitudes toward AI in the U.S. and China.
My argument is that the American backlash may be less about technology itself than about the weakening link between technological acceleration and ordinary upward mobility. America is still accelerating technologically, but for many people the historical expectation that progress will also carry them forward has broken down.
So I’d be especially interested in what you heard in those interviews: were people mainly talking about the direct local costs of data centers, or did you also hear a broader sense of “this future is being built, but not for us”?
i guess i would say it is kind of complicated. of the 52, 11-12 worked in tech, a couple had built data centers (not hyperscale). most of the 52 were middle-class. and while there was definitely an age range, most were probably 40-50 years old. they didn't necessarily see the future being built for others; most would say, however, they did see AI as contributing to widening equality. i can't say though that inequality was a main concern for them.
That distinction is really useful, thank you. Especially the fact that quite a few of the people you interviewed actually worked in tech, or had experience building data centers. That makes the picture much more complicated than a simple “people being left behind by technology” story.
What you’re describing also makes me wonder whether there’s an important difference between a background perception and a mobilizing grievance. People may believe AI is widening inequality without inequality itself being the reason they show up to oppose a particular data center.
In that case, the more immediate trigger might still be something much more local and concrete: water, electricity, noise, land use, or simply having a major transformation imposed on a community without much say in it.
I’d be curious: across the 52 interviews, what concerns actually came up most consistently when people explained why they became involved?
I saw an interview with you recently where you were talking about who the beneficiaries are. It's interesting that Trump says he'd "absolutely want" a data centre in his area, rather than say a wind farm, especially given the recent declaration of a "national emergency to Secure America’s Bulk-Power System" "does not apply to facilities used for local distribution of electric energy"...
100%…I know folks know but please may I just bring it up again…to me job one is getting folks to understand why a data center to start with…what do they do that we don’t already have…it is surveillance, policing and warfare…against us…it is not just the foreigners in foreign countries…and data, water and electricity is needed…can we not just say fuck no…in the Luchino Visconti 1969 film The Damned one of the nazis took a member of one of the collaborating industrial families on a tour of the massive “Gestapo’s secret file room”…you can see the clip on youtube…if we can dream it we can do it…silicon valley invented this shit well I say we go the other direction and dedicate every bit of intelligence we have to un-invent re-invent I don’t care just take a new path…all computer scientists are not working just for the evil ones…people are perking up and protesting and it is glorious…trump gets all the attention but it is this other thing we have to conquer and put under the microscope and publish about…many smart folks are, so hell yes…go brainiacs go…turns out the sheep are not dumb and will not go in an orderly fashion.
This has got to be one of biggest mismatches in tech history. Gazillions of bucks on one side and a populace that understands almost unconsciously what has been taken from us by our devices.
Techies just don't get social stuff. People offend them. When techbros communicate it is only about optimisation... a mix of sociopathy as diversity and ultra capitalist sovereign individual corporate psychopathy ... the evil flies under the radar...optimising things means getting rid of people... not making thing better for them.
part of what we need to see campaigners doing - especially when communicating with trades members - is making the point clear that our rulers are offering us either homes for GPUs that steal the work of society, cook the planet, and promise to destroy our jobs, or nothing. This is especially salient for tradesworkers who are told by capital, and the government that represents it, that making real the fever dream of data centers as far as the eye can see is more important than infrastructure to improve our housing, transportation, and energy systems. And rather than complaining about "temporary jobs" - a term that makes tradesworkers very upset since all construction jobs are by their nature temporary - the field of terrain should be the nature of the investment that we want these folks to build
A lot of said temporary jobs were lost when Trump sabotaged what he calls Biden's "green new scam", which had produced a near doubling of manufacturing construction.
Read about a young IBEW electrician, starting a family, years of work ahead of him on IRA projects, who lost it and his job after Trump was elected. He voted for him.
They did point out to members that the union had had record man hours and achieved record membership under Biden, and Harris would likely continue his policies, but it was not that forceful.
'NABTU Biden endorsement' was very forceful, still on You Tube, only 5k views (love to know why).
To me, it's a real question how much union support was lost when Biden withdrew. None of the pundits even considered it, still haven't.
The material side is further along than the coverage usually gets to. Community challenges have already delayed or blocked around $64B worth of projects. And in Gallup's breakdown the strongest local opposition comes from conservative Republicans, the exact coalition the industry's federal strategy leans on.
Another factor-- There have been hundreds of dramatic protests advocating to protect kids and teens from predatory social media platforms for years. The coverage just isn't there from traditional media. Then, the NYT writes an article 15 years after the horse is out of the barn and pats itself on the back for "breaking news.". The real work is being done by the BITMs. Thank you!
Google glasses came out in like 2012 and I was dating someone who had a pair and would wear them out (living in Michigan) and so many people were mean to him that he stopped lol
The rising opposition is interesting. I have been wondering why it is happening now 🤔 all this agitation As data centres and camera’s have been around for a while.
But their numbers have been increasing at a furious pace, and they're being shoved into communities with no consultation. Also, the feedback from the communities that got the first ones is fueling opposition elsewhere.
The scale of these data centers is far, far, gteater then previous ones. I worked as an emergency generator tech in NYC area, in 2007 I worked on two financial centers in NJ, each with six 2.8 MW diesel gensets. That was big, then. Googled the number of diesel gensets required for AI, got 39-40, with note that "campuses" of centers were planned. As you might expect, there's a two year backlog on large diesel gensets (and everything else).
Diesel generators are rypically used in emergency power applications, when the utility power fails.
For "behind the meter", or "prime power" applicationd, gas turbines are favored, as they are more powerful. A promiment example is Musk's Colossus centers outside of Memphis, TN. He's making serious money renting compute to Anthropic and Google, since there's a two plus year backlog on gas turbines, too, and urilities are overstretched.
What it indicates is that the AI data cemter buildout is sucking in a largr % of not only the available financial capital, but the available physical capital, too.
One bad-faith rhetorical trick I've noticed from AI advocates recently is "yeah, but you overreacted about water use." Folks are opposed to data centers, AI, and surveillance tech for many reasons, and the complicated relationship of data centers to water is just one of them.
Aside from comparisons of direct local harm and number of jobs, a steel mill produces a useful product. A data center produces AI slop, mass surveillance, an assist to hideously immoral wars, an increase in mental health issues and alienation, and cements the control over all of us of a faceless, anonymous bunch of racist psychopaths. A steel mill produces steel.
Exactly. What’s more is that AI, for all its alleged usefulness, is unlikely to be missed by many if it were taken off the table.
This is strange for a new technology… usually the arrival of a clever new tool elicits excitement rather than resentment or a sense of dread.
liked by WVresister? Are you in West Virginia, WV resister? So am I.
this is spot on. i did 52 interviews over the summer with data center protest groups and i heard the same thing from them.
That makes sense, and I think democracy and accountability may actually be the more important distinction here.
It suggests that opposition isn’t necessarily a reaction to acceleration itself, or even primarily to inequality. The mobilizing question may be much more direct: who gets to decide that this transformation happens here, who bears its consequences, and who can actually be held accountable for those decisions?
In that sense, perhaps what people are reacting against is not simply being “left behind,” but a form of acceleration without agency.
That’s a useful correction to how I’ve been thinking about the problem. Thank you.
52 interviews is a fascinating dataset. I’d be very curious whether you heard a distinction between opposition to data centers themselves and something broader: a sense that this round of technological acceleration is happening around people rather than carrying them with it.
Reading Brian’s piece pushed me toward that question from a different direction. I just published an essay called “The Acceleration Gap: On Speed Without Passengers,” comparing the very different attitudes toward AI in the U.S. and China.
My argument is that the American backlash may be less about technology itself than about the weakening link between technological acceleration and ordinary upward mobility. America is still accelerating technologically, but for many people the historical expectation that progress will also carry them forward has broken down.
So I’d be especially interested in what you heard in those interviews: were people mainly talking about the direct local costs of data centers, or did you also hear a broader sense of “this future is being built, but not for us”?
i guess i would say it is kind of complicated. of the 52, 11-12 worked in tech, a couple had built data centers (not hyperscale). most of the 52 were middle-class. and while there was definitely an age range, most were probably 40-50 years old. they didn't necessarily see the future being built for others; most would say, however, they did see AI as contributing to widening equality. i can't say though that inequality was a main concern for them.
That distinction is really useful, thank you. Especially the fact that quite a few of the people you interviewed actually worked in tech, or had experience building data centers. That makes the picture much more complicated than a simple “people being left behind by technology” story.
What you’re describing also makes me wonder whether there’s an important difference between a background perception and a mobilizing grievance. People may believe AI is widening inequality without inequality itself being the reason they show up to oppose a particular data center.
In that case, the more immediate trigger might still be something much more local and concrete: water, electricity, noise, land use, or simply having a major transformation imposed on a community without much say in it.
I’d be curious: across the 52 interviews, what concerns actually came up most consistently when people explained why they became involved?
a lot of it was democracy and accountability. perception and mobilization are definitely different things, at least here.
Wild that this is confusing to techies when their product advertising essentially consisted of insane unhinged threats to end the economy..
Tech companies: We LOVE free-market capitalism!
People: Your products suck. We hate them and don't want to pay for them.
Tech companies: No, not like that!
I saw an interview with you recently where you were talking about who the beneficiaries are. It's interesting that Trump says he'd "absolutely want" a data centre in his area, rather than say a wind farm, especially given the recent declaration of a "national emergency to Secure America’s Bulk-Power System" "does not apply to facilities used for local distribution of electric energy"...
to be fair, Trump is by all accounts building a massive data centre in the bunker underneath his ballroom...
100%…I know folks know but please may I just bring it up again…to me job one is getting folks to understand why a data center to start with…what do they do that we don’t already have…it is surveillance, policing and warfare…against us…it is not just the foreigners in foreign countries…and data, water and electricity is needed…can we not just say fuck no…in the Luchino Visconti 1969 film The Damned one of the nazis took a member of one of the collaborating industrial families on a tour of the massive “Gestapo’s secret file room”…you can see the clip on youtube…if we can dream it we can do it…silicon valley invented this shit well I say we go the other direction and dedicate every bit of intelligence we have to un-invent re-invent I don’t care just take a new path…all computer scientists are not working just for the evil ones…people are perking up and protesting and it is glorious…trump gets all the attention but it is this other thing we have to conquer and put under the microscope and publish about…many smart folks are, so hell yes…go brainiacs go…turns out the sheep are not dumb and will not go in an orderly fashion.
This has got to be one of biggest mismatches in tech history. Gazillions of bucks on one side and a populace that understands almost unconsciously what has been taken from us by our devices.
You should add rockets to your list of objectionable tech. Trump just got rid of all environmental protections and wants 5 times as many rockets every year, which will trash the environment, the climate, and the ozone layer. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2026/08/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-launches-the-golden-age-of-space-transportation/
The public doesn’t like evil nerds who act like comic book villains. Imagine that.
Techies just don't get social stuff. People offend them. When techbros communicate it is only about optimisation... a mix of sociopathy as diversity and ultra capitalist sovereign individual corporate psychopathy ... the evil flies under the radar...optimising things means getting rid of people... not making thing better for them.
part of what we need to see campaigners doing - especially when communicating with trades members - is making the point clear that our rulers are offering us either homes for GPUs that steal the work of society, cook the planet, and promise to destroy our jobs, or nothing. This is especially salient for tradesworkers who are told by capital, and the government that represents it, that making real the fever dream of data centers as far as the eye can see is more important than infrastructure to improve our housing, transportation, and energy systems. And rather than complaining about "temporary jobs" - a term that makes tradesworkers very upset since all construction jobs are by their nature temporary - the field of terrain should be the nature of the investment that we want these folks to build
A lot of said temporary jobs were lost when Trump sabotaged what he calls Biden's "green new scam", which had produced a near doubling of manufacturing construction.
Read about a young IBEW electrician, starting a family, years of work ahead of him on IRA projects, who lost it and his job after Trump was elected. He voted for him.
AI bubble is what we got instead.
Yup. Not enough political education in the trades
I'm retired IUOE, and, no, there is NOT.
They did point out to members that the union had had record man hours and achieved record membership under Biden, and Harris would likely continue his policies, but it was not that forceful.
'NABTU Biden endorsement' was very forceful, still on You Tube, only 5k views (love to know why).
To me, it's a real question how much union support was lost when Biden withdrew. None of the pundits even considered it, still haven't.
The material side is further along than the coverage usually gets to. Community challenges have already delayed or blocked around $64B worth of projects. And in Gallup's breakdown the strongest local opposition comes from conservative Republicans, the exact coalition the industry's federal strategy leans on.
Another factor-- There have been hundreds of dramatic protests advocating to protect kids and teens from predatory social media platforms for years. The coverage just isn't there from traditional media. Then, the NYT writes an article 15 years after the horse is out of the barn and pats itself on the back for "breaking news.". The real work is being done by the BITMs. Thank you!
Google glasses came out in like 2012 and I was dating someone who had a pair and would wear them out (living in Michigan) and so many people were mean to him that he stopped lol
It’s shocking to me how little was learned from the “glasshole” fiasco.
AI makes high speed rail look like a bargain.
The rising opposition is interesting. I have been wondering why it is happening now 🤔 all this agitation As data centres and camera’s have been around for a while.
But their numbers have been increasing at a furious pace, and they're being shoved into communities with no consultation. Also, the feedback from the communities that got the first ones is fueling opposition elsewhere.
That’s interesting and encouraging news. There are more data centres in the US than the rest of the world.
But they want to build more in the UK. I wonder if there will also be resistance here.
The scale of these data centers is far, far, gteater then previous ones. I worked as an emergency generator tech in NYC area, in 2007 I worked on two financial centers in NJ, each with six 2.8 MW diesel gensets. That was big, then. Googled the number of diesel gensets required for AI, got 39-40, with note that "campuses" of centers were planned. As you might expect, there's a two year backlog on large diesel gensets (and everything else).
And is that going through a stained electrical system, too? Are the gen sets hooked in to the local electrical grid?
Diesel generators are rypically used in emergency power applications, when the utility power fails.
For "behind the meter", or "prime power" applicationd, gas turbines are favored, as they are more powerful. A promiment example is Musk's Colossus centers outside of Memphis, TN. He's making serious money renting compute to Anthropic and Google, since there's a two plus year backlog on gas turbines, too, and urilities are overstretched.
That’s interesting information and shows how more resources are needed now. Thank you
What it indicates is that the AI data cemter buildout is sucking in a largr % of not only the available financial capital, but the available physical capital, too.
One bad-faith rhetorical trick I've noticed from AI advocates recently is "yeah, but you overreacted about water use." Folks are opposed to data centers, AI, and surveillance tech for many reasons, and the complicated relationship of data centers to water is just one of them.