I have complete confidence the EU will realise this may violate transparency laws, it will go to court in 7-8 years, publish a response in the next 5 finally getting this law fixed in about 2040. They always get these things right, in the end
The obvious compromise seems to be to limit the duration of confidentiality to something reasonable. Let's say 1-2 years.
Furthermore the initial draft talked about aggregate data anyway. The EU really shouldn't care about individual DCs anyway.
As long as they keep the water clean (and pay for the relevant environmental load quotas) and have the permits who the fuck cares? It's idiotic anti-AI hysteria.
The quote about "ramping up their lobbying efforts" is also absurd, it's just a few lines after the paragraph that describes that the commission asked for feedback from the industry as part of some standard consultative process.
The most crazy part seems to be the commission's "we have always been at war with Eastasia" behavior regarding the confidentiality.
GDPR made rating agencies a lot more transparent than they used to be. There was a lot of guessing about why your Schufa score might be bad in Germany. I can now get a detailed breakdown of the data they have of me for free.
It’s not "no one", but rather "almost no one". The difference is small, but still big enough to make room for me and a surprisingly large number of my friends and acquaintances—including our raised middle fingers.
We don't have to be in the majority; the main thing is that there's a niche for us. If the whole world is smoking crack, that's not ideal. But at least we don't have to go along with it.
Oil countries (that includes the USA) buying political will in Europe is nothing new. The EU was already fighting against its own internal corruption and inequality, the state of the world is not helping at all.
As inequality grows in any part of the globe that money will be used to corrupt the rest of the world. The EU is not immune to it.
So, we all need to fight against wealth accumulation, inequality and corruption.
It isn't just the EU. Anytime $1M in lobbying will buy you $1B in contracts or regulatory capture, it will always be a no brainer. We need better transparency about the money trail and full disclosure before things go to vote so the public can weigh in.
This is an example. The corrupting influence of "Big money" up against transparency
Transparency helps, especially in Europe where civil society runs deep.
My mind is blown by the USAnian president blatantly grafting, out in the open, and it is not a political liability. Many political analysts think that is what cost Orbán the Hungarian election
I mean if you're gonna regulate, then regulate. But what's the point of making everyone do extra paperwork if there's no actual environmental effect of doing the paperwork because the big guys have loopholes
While the precedent is clearly bad individual DCs don't matter, as long as the actual consumption and environmental load correctly shows up in regional stats.
As long as they pay the quotas it doesn't matter. DCs don't eat the water, people can go and take samples, measure temperature. Heck, how complicated it will be to put out a solar panel powered thermometer with a SIM card? Or set up a drone with a IR camera to fly around a DC each day? If someone wants to carry out a crusade against DCs, sure, there's plenty of precedent for that too! (see Cervantes 1605 and 1615) And of course if hedge funds want to know when to short the AI bubble they'll be doing the same anyway, so the commission should ask them to publish their data with a few months lag.
Nerfed carrying a lot of water here, neglecting the fact that big tech is successfully using the US federal government to threaten the whole of EU if they are slightly mean to Zuckerberg + friends.
That is part of it, but e.g. GDPR enforcement has been dismal since its inception, also against European companies. E.g. "Pay or Okay" is widespread, although it's clearly illegal.
This is great. The presentation of #1 is a little awkward because it reflects the scope of their project, but gives the impression of geographic concentration.
I wonder if this is less about the environmental impact (which can be greenwashed as necessary), and more about the power consumption of individual data centres.
Well datacenters ARE rated by their power usage. And then there is a PUE ratio which indicates how much power is to be used by feeding the equipment vs overall usage for supporting equipment (cooling).
Just this week we launched a datacenter hat runs 100% on renewable energy even in case when diesel engines have to turn on and seeking LEED certification: https://delska.com/about/news-resources/delska-newsroom/dels... - the available energy to the DC is always trumpeted in topic. Yeah, we are kind of proud of technical achievements and efficiency achieved.
But we have the luxury as being slightly nordic, not needing to consume water for cooling. And what is not widespread but taking effect is that datacenters are able to give the heat for useful purposes like heating homes. It needs datacenter to be in city and cooperation for gov agencies, but this is the path that is being taken across countries: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/06/sustainable-data-cen...
Modern datacenters use local power generation that means lots of bad pollution worse than most factories. There is really bad sound pollution from many of them. They are enormous and create barriers where people should be able to move around.
I find this facet of Capitalism the most concerning; fiduciary responsibility to the shareholder. It breaks the link between people and matters that concern society (like the environment, in the case of this article). In the drive to increase profit, individual legislators can be convinced to tweak a law or two for 'greater economic growth' somewhere. Over the decades, the effect is a shift in political power away from the people and into industry and ultimately into the hands of a few. I've come to think that this is what we're witnessing in the US. While we're not looking, the landscape is changing behind the scenes. Bram Vranken's quote from the article is poignant: 'Who does the Commission really represent: Big Tech or the public interest?' I often wonder what can be done by us (i.e. all people) to push back and it mostly requires a lot of effort from everyone; participation in Democracy.
This isn't solely due to shareholder fiduciary duty. Even without such a duty, the shareholders would fire anyone who doesn't put them first. Even without shares, a sole owner of a company would also do that. No matter your position, you don't get to do things that are bad for your boss, so the ultimate bosses (whoever they are in a given system) hold all the power.
And power has a tendency to accumulate. Powerful people always use their power to increase their power. There are no exceptions.
Fiduciary duty effectively turns profit maximization into the only valid goal. Companies with sole owners or family businesses tend to have much more diverse goals. Many of Europe's large companies are still private (certainly more so than in the US), and from the ones I've personally dealt with the image of the founder/owner/family is often a driving concern. That can materialize as better business practices, or as a ruthless business that reinvests a notable part of profits in projects with public benefit, usually locally wherever they are headquartered.
Other examples in the US would include SpaceX, which supposedly is not about profit but about building a mars colony (and so far their actions seem to align with that), or Rupert Murdoch's media empire that's at least as much about spreading right wing views in the anglosphere as it is about money.
That's an Ayn Rand type black and white view of society. Not so long ago, companies were supposed to (and many did) care for continuity, in a broad sense: survival, labor, customer, and product. Nowadays, you would add environment too. Shares were a way of getting more interest than a savings account. Heck, there were even cooperations in which the laborers were shareholders as well.
Think in terms of a dynamic system. Or in terms of "selfish gene", as I've observed it to be easier to talk about.
Any single person or group in a corporation is expendable. You can swap out the sales department or a CEO, and the corporation will continue on its course without a pause or major change of direction. No single person or group of people is in total control of the direction - what directs the corporation is the sum total of ideas, vibes, internal influences, bylaws, operating practices, assets, and external environment of competitors and markets and regulatory landscape. The people that make up a corporation may be diverse and have conflicting goals, but if there's one thing they're all aligned on, is that they all want to keep their jobs and increase their pay or influence. I.e. they want the corporation to go on, to survive at least to their next paycheck.
The end result is, a corporation can be seen as an independent entity - kinda like an animal (or a super-colony for more accurate comparison) with a survival drive independent of the people that form it.
If there is a single owner, could shut down the place, for example.
As I said, in my experience, the humans - interchangible or not, as customers, competitors, owners etc - determine what happens, not the corporation itself.
Can look at a corporate as "living thing" itself, but I think that underestimates the human side.
Then again, there are 100 billion highly interconnected neurons without a CEO, a CFO, a CTO, a COO, etc. Thinking that from 50, 500 or even 5000 barely connected people with exterior motivation some higher intelligence can emerge is naive. Do not anthropomorphize.
5000 barely connected people isn't a corporation, it's a mob. A corporation has more to it.
In fact people aren't much more important that the software that runs on them. Because that's what all the bureaucracy is - all those rules and bylaws and contractual obligations and checklists and playbooks and regulation - software running on a runtime made of meat, one form letter or internal memo at a time.
Most of the time, losing people is to corporation what clipping a toe nail is to an adult, or a bit flip to a modern computer - a non-event you barely notice and carry on.
> higher intelligence can emerge
Nobody said "higher intelligence". I mentioned animals, ant supercolonies, but the same patterns of behavior is visible in even most basic multi-cellular and single-cellular organisms.
> Do not anthropomorphize.
Nobody says you need to.
(Except with LLMs, where refusing to do so means you'll just remain confused about what can or cannot, should or should not, be done with them.)
No fiduciary responsibility needed, democracy alone is enough to encourage corruption.
For example, a company decision-maker responsible for picking the city/county/country in which their company will put a new factory is in position of great influence on municipal/regional/national level politics - simply because the people want jobs, and politicians want to be popular with the people.
To be more precise, the people want to live within a certain standard. I can’t think of anyone¹ who really wants a job. Purpose, something to do, money (which translates to standard of living), recognition, sure, but those don’t really necessitate a job, as in something you have to do on the regular to be able to survive through the indirection of money.
The distinction is important because those who have the power you described are also the ones who have the biggest incentive to perpetuate this notion that everyone needs a job and that there’s no other way the system could work. Thus, by framing it in the context of jobs we’re discussing on their terms and have already lost.
¹ For sure there’ll be someone, but not enough to be meaningful.
The issue is corruption and it is in capitalism, socialism and communism. Corruption is everywhere all the time. Capitalism is just redistribution of resources. There is also redistribution of resources in communism and there the corruption i would say is even bigger. Less in amount for one specific person, but spread out throught society that it rots from inside.
Capitalism is not the redistribution of resources. It is an economic system in which the means of production are owned by private owners, as opposed to collectively.
In theory, full communism prevents corruption by removing its structural causes rather than relying on laws or moral exhortation. And since corruption under capitalism (in Marxist analysis) stems from private ownership, class divisions, and the scramble for scarce resources, abolishing those conditions should eliminate the incentives that drive people to exploit positions of power for personal gain. Without private property to accumulate or a state apparatus to capture, the reasoning goes, there would simply be nothing left to be corrupt about.
>Without private property to accumulate or a state apparatus to capture, the reasoning goes, there would simply be nothing left to be corrupt about.
Right, it becomes mostly the corruption of power, and the lengths people will go to in order to retain it. It’s astonishing that is not recognized as a problem.
> I find this facet of Capitalism the most concerning; fiduciary responsibility to the shareholder.
That’s not the least of my concerns. My problem with capitalism is its desire to influence politics in its favor, and the utter lack of regulation amongst politicians (ie self regulation) to forbid this practice.
The whole industry of lobbying should not be allowed to exist.
Lobbying must be allowed to exist. You bringing issues to the attention of your representative or asking them to change some policy is lobbying. It is even very useful to allow organizations to lobby politicians. For example, I want EFF to be able to lobby politicians about things I don't have the time or influence to really push for political change on. I do wonder how we could effectively restrict corporate lobbying in that context. Maybe there could be a special type of charitable nonprofit that is more restricted, such as only being allowed to accept funding from individuals rather than corporations and then deny lobbying rights to anyone acting as agent of any organization other than one of that sort? But I think we're very far from a political environment in the US in which any constitutional amendment restricting personal rights in the political process would end well.
I guess we need to pay politicians enough. And have very very strict checks on their wealth. Maybe even only pick people with no families and don't allow them property. That would essentially eliminate bribery. Question is what else would it do... Nothing is so simple in the end.
But yes any such system has to be very simple at it's core.
Can anyone name any other industry that is as open and transparent about power and water usage as the IT industry? How much energy does your local oil refinery, metal smelter, borax plant use?
Large data center operators are already far more transparent with their annual reports than any other industry.
Data centers are uber resource hogs: land, water, power. They compete for the same resources as other industries but also against the local citizenry. Who benefits from mass consumption of the resources and at what cost. Age old debate.
Indeed, their argument makes no sense. They would probably complain about any industry building large factories. It seems they don't like progress, and not even the status quo, they would prefer regression.
Paper provides an actual utility that people want and serves a real human need. Hyper scale data centers only exist to make Garfield porn and help scammers.
You are using HN which may or may not be hosted in datacenter.
To reach HN you are probably hopping via some communication hubs that may be located in datacenter.
You are going to store to buy some stuff which probably hosts their infra in a datacenter or use datacenter services.
You do use mobile phone? Well they also need to host services somewhere and make connectivity.
The school where your kids go either uses school management software and/or websites which provide educational material or doing exams.
Then you have online video conferencing...
I mean this list could get pretty long - I think listing them here on HN is kind of useless. It is just the datacenter infra is at the very bottom, providing foundational but invisible service to end users. Just like we don't see how things are manufactured or how raw materials are sourced for making real stuff, same goes with datacenter.
I have complete confidence the EU will realise this may violate transparency laws, it will go to court in 7-8 years, publish a response in the next 5 finally getting this law fixed in about 2040. They always get these things right, in the end
The obvious compromise seems to be to limit the duration of confidentiality to something reasonable. Let's say 1-2 years.
Furthermore the initial draft talked about aggregate data anyway. The EU really shouldn't care about individual DCs anyway.
As long as they keep the water clean (and pay for the relevant environmental load quotas) and have the permits who the fuck cares? It's idiotic anti-AI hysteria.
The quote about "ramping up their lobbying efforts" is also absurd, it's just a few lines after the paragraph that describes that the commission asked for feedback from the industry as part of some standard consultative process.
The most crazy part seems to be the commission's "we have always been at war with Eastasia" behavior regarding the confidentiality.
Hey at least all your devices use USB-C and there’s alternative app stores no one really uses
Add being able to use your data plan throughout the EU without roaming costs and we're back at two for three.
GDPR made rating agencies a lot more transparent than they used to be. There was a lot of guessing about why your Schufa score might be bad in Germany. I can now get a detailed breakdown of the data they have of me for free.
> alternative app stores no one really uses
It’s not "no one", but rather "almost no one". The difference is small, but still big enough to make room for me and a surprisingly large number of my friends and acquaintances—including our raised middle fingers.
We don't have to be in the majority; the main thing is that there's a niche for us. If the whole world is smoking crack, that's not ideal. But at least we don't have to go along with it.
EU has a really big problem with lobbing/corruption. Qatargate, russian connections, von der Leyen–Pfizer affair.
Oil countries (that includes the USA) buying political will in Europe is nothing new. The EU was already fighting against its own internal corruption and inequality, the state of the world is not helping at all.
As inequality grows in any part of the globe that money will be used to corrupt the rest of the world. The EU is not immune to it.
So, we all need to fight against wealth accumulation, inequality and corruption.
It kind of sounds like you're blaming other countries for corruption in the EU?
I read it as the EU was having a hard enough time with corruption before external pressure got involved.
It isn't just the EU. Anytime $1M in lobbying will buy you $1B in contracts or regulatory capture, it will always be a no brainer. We need better transparency about the money trail and full disclosure before things go to vote so the public can weigh in.
States, generally, have to combat corruption.
This is an example. The corrupting influence of "Big money" up against transparency
Transparency helps, especially in Europe where civil society runs deep.
My mind is blown by the USAnian president blatantly grafting, out in the open, and it is not a political liability. Many political analysts think that is what cost Orbán the Hungarian election
I forget, am i meant to be shaking with rage that the EU have regulations OR that the regulations include disclosure carveouts?
You're supposed to go blind with rage after "the EU".
I mean if you're gonna regulate, then regulate. But what's the point of making everyone do extra paperwork if there's no actual environmental effect of doing the paperwork because the big guys have loopholes
While the precedent is clearly bad individual DCs don't matter, as long as the actual consumption and environmental load correctly shows up in regional stats.
As long as they pay the quotas it doesn't matter. DCs don't eat the water, people can go and take samples, measure temperature. Heck, how complicated it will be to put out a solar panel powered thermometer with a SIM card? Or set up a drone with a IR camera to fly around a DC each day? If someone wants to carry out a crusade against DCs, sure, there's plenty of precedent for that too! (see Cervantes 1605 and 1615) And of course if hedge funds want to know when to short the AI bubble they'll be doing the same anyway, so the commission should ask them to publish their data with a few months lag.
It's that EU has illusion of regulation that is nerfed with either loopholes or lack of enforcement.
Nerfed carrying a lot of water here, neglecting the fact that big tech is successfully using the US federal government to threaten the whole of EU if they are slightly mean to Zuckerberg + friends.
That is part of it, but e.g. GDPR enforcement has been dismal since its inception, also against European companies. E.g. "Pay or Okay" is widespread, although it's clearly illegal.
https://noyb.eu/en/noybs-pay-or-okay-report-how-companies-ma...
I mean, thats the deal Europe signed up for after WW2.
Yea, regulation with no effect is just extra paperwork for no reason
Of course, transparency for thee but not for me.
For what it's worth, an alternative data source [1] is being created by the DCWatch project [2].
[1] https://datacenters.hubblo.org/
[2] https://dcwatch.hubblo.org/
This is great. The presentation of #1 is a little awkward because it reflects the scope of their project, but gives the impression of geographic concentration.
I wonder if this is less about the environmental impact (which can be greenwashed as necessary), and more about the power consumption of individual data centres.
Well datacenters ARE rated by their power usage. And then there is a PUE ratio which indicates how much power is to be used by feeding the equipment vs overall usage for supporting equipment (cooling).
Just this week we launched a datacenter hat runs 100% on renewable energy even in case when diesel engines have to turn on and seeking LEED certification: https://delska.com/about/news-resources/delska-newsroom/dels... - the available energy to the DC is always trumpeted in topic. Yeah, we are kind of proud of technical achievements and efficiency achieved.
But we have the luxury as being slightly nordic, not needing to consume water for cooling. And what is not widespread but taking effect is that datacenters are able to give the heat for useful purposes like heating homes. It needs datacenter to be in city and cooperation for gov agencies, but this is the path that is being taken across countries: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/06/sustainable-data-cen...
>Well datacenters ARE rated by their power usage
Exactly - would be nice if that information was public knowledge!
You do not want a modern datacenter near people.
Why? Datacenters have smaller effects on neighbors than other industries. No runoff like farming, no pollution like factories
Modern datacenters use local power generation that means lots of bad pollution worse than most factories. There is really bad sound pollution from many of them. They are enormous and create barriers where people should be able to move around.
I imagine they want to ensure that the consumption data can't be used to reverse engineer technical information relating to each specific centre.
I find this facet of Capitalism the most concerning; fiduciary responsibility to the shareholder. It breaks the link between people and matters that concern society (like the environment, in the case of this article). In the drive to increase profit, individual legislators can be convinced to tweak a law or two for 'greater economic growth' somewhere. Over the decades, the effect is a shift in political power away from the people and into industry and ultimately into the hands of a few. I've come to think that this is what we're witnessing in the US. While we're not looking, the landscape is changing behind the scenes. Bram Vranken's quote from the article is poignant: 'Who does the Commission really represent: Big Tech or the public interest?' I often wonder what can be done by us (i.e. all people) to push back and it mostly requires a lot of effort from everyone; participation in Democracy.
This isn't solely due to shareholder fiduciary duty. Even without such a duty, the shareholders would fire anyone who doesn't put them first. Even without shares, a sole owner of a company would also do that. No matter your position, you don't get to do things that are bad for your boss, so the ultimate bosses (whoever they are in a given system) hold all the power.
And power has a tendency to accumulate. Powerful people always use their power to increase their power. There are no exceptions.
Fiduciary duty effectively turns profit maximization into the only valid goal. Companies with sole owners or family businesses tend to have much more diverse goals. Many of Europe's large companies are still private (certainly more so than in the US), and from the ones I've personally dealt with the image of the founder/owner/family is often a driving concern. That can materialize as better business practices, or as a ruthless business that reinvests a notable part of profits in projects with public benefit, usually locally wherever they are headquartered.
Other examples in the US would include SpaceX, which supposedly is not about profit but about building a mars colony (and so far their actions seem to align with that), or Rupert Murdoch's media empire that's at least as much about spreading right wing views in the anglosphere as it is about money.
That's an Ayn Rand type black and white view of society. Not so long ago, companies were supposed to (and many did) care for continuity, in a broad sense: survival, labor, customer, and product. Nowadays, you would add environment too. Shares were a way of getting more interest than a savings account. Heck, there were even cooperations in which the laborers were shareholders as well.
The word you are looking for is greed.
Corporations do care for survival and continuity - of themselves. Not the people, not even people working in them or running them - just themselves.
How could a corporation itself care about anything? How would it act itself (without humans), for example, to express such care?
In my experience, it is always people.
Think in terms of a dynamic system. Or in terms of "selfish gene", as I've observed it to be easier to talk about.
Any single person or group in a corporation is expendable. You can swap out the sales department or a CEO, and the corporation will continue on its course without a pause or major change of direction. No single person or group of people is in total control of the direction - what directs the corporation is the sum total of ideas, vibes, internal influences, bylaws, operating practices, assets, and external environment of competitors and markets and regulatory landscape. The people that make up a corporation may be diverse and have conflicting goals, but if there's one thing they're all aligned on, is that they all want to keep their jobs and increase their pay or influence. I.e. they want the corporation to go on, to survive at least to their next paycheck.
The end result is, a corporation can be seen as an independent entity - kinda like an animal (or a super-colony for more accurate comparison) with a survival drive independent of the people that form it.
If there is a single owner, could shut down the place, for example.
As I said, in my experience, the humans - interchangible or not, as customers, competitors, owners etc - determine what happens, not the corporation itself.
Can look at a corporate as "living thing" itself, but I think that underestimates the human side.
Individual neurons determine how your arm moves, but we still speak of a human as a whole being that makes decisions.
Then again, there are 100 billion highly interconnected neurons without a CEO, a CFO, a CTO, a COO, etc. Thinking that from 50, 500 or even 5000 barely connected people with exterior motivation some higher intelligence can emerge is naive. Do not anthropomorphize.
> 50, 500 or even 5000 barely connected people
5000 barely connected people isn't a corporation, it's a mob. A corporation has more to it.
In fact people aren't much more important that the software that runs on them. Because that's what all the bureaucracy is - all those rules and bylaws and contractual obligations and checklists and playbooks and regulation - software running on a runtime made of meat, one form letter or internal memo at a time.
Most of the time, losing people is to corporation what clipping a toe nail is to an adult, or a bit flip to a modern computer - a non-event you barely notice and carry on.
> higher intelligence can emerge
Nobody said "higher intelligence". I mentioned animals, ant supercolonies, but the same patterns of behavior is visible in even most basic multi-cellular and single-cellular organisms.
> Do not anthropomorphize.
Nobody says you need to.
(Except with LLMs, where refusing to do so means you'll just remain confused about what can or cannot, should or should not, be done with them.)
No fiduciary responsibility needed, democracy alone is enough to encourage corruption.
For example, a company decision-maker responsible for picking the city/county/country in which their company will put a new factory is in position of great influence on municipal/regional/national level politics - simply because the people want jobs, and politicians want to be popular with the people.
> simply because the people want jobs
To be more precise, the people want to live within a certain standard. I can’t think of anyone¹ who really wants a job. Purpose, something to do, money (which translates to standard of living), recognition, sure, but those don’t really necessitate a job, as in something you have to do on the regular to be able to survive through the indirection of money.
The distinction is important because those who have the power you described are also the ones who have the biggest incentive to perpetuate this notion that everyone needs a job and that there’s no other way the system could work. Thus, by framing it in the context of jobs we’re discussing on their terms and have already lost.
¹ For sure there’ll be someone, but not enough to be meaningful.
I agree, thanks for the correction. In the timeless words of 'nostromo:
No job is the goal. No money is the problem.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8987073
The issue is corruption and it is in capitalism, socialism and communism. Corruption is everywhere all the time. Capitalism is just redistribution of resources. There is also redistribution of resources in communism and there the corruption i would say is even bigger. Less in amount for one specific person, but spread out throught society that it rots from inside.
Capitalism is not the redistribution of resources. It is an economic system in which the means of production are owned by private owners, as opposed to collectively.
In theory, full communism prevents corruption by removing its structural causes rather than relying on laws or moral exhortation. And since corruption under capitalism (in Marxist analysis) stems from private ownership, class divisions, and the scramble for scarce resources, abolishing those conditions should eliminate the incentives that drive people to exploit positions of power for personal gain. Without private property to accumulate or a state apparatus to capture, the reasoning goes, there would simply be nothing left to be corrupt about.
>Without private property to accumulate or a state apparatus to capture, the reasoning goes, there would simply be nothing left to be corrupt about.
Right, it becomes mostly the corruption of power, and the lengths people will go to in order to retain it. It’s astonishing that is not recognized as a problem.
what does this have to do with EU politicians breaking their own rules
> I find this facet of Capitalism the most concerning; fiduciary responsibility to the shareholder.
That’s not the least of my concerns. My problem with capitalism is its desire to influence politics in its favor, and the utter lack of regulation amongst politicians (ie self regulation) to forbid this practice.
The whole industry of lobbying should not be allowed to exist.
Lobbying must be allowed to exist. You bringing issues to the attention of your representative or asking them to change some policy is lobbying. It is even very useful to allow organizations to lobby politicians. For example, I want EFF to be able to lobby politicians about things I don't have the time or influence to really push for political change on. I do wonder how we could effectively restrict corporate lobbying in that context. Maybe there could be a special type of charitable nonprofit that is more restricted, such as only being allowed to accept funding from individuals rather than corporations and then deny lobbying rights to anyone acting as agent of any organization other than one of that sort? But I think we're very far from a political environment in the US in which any constitutional amendment restricting personal rights in the political process would end well.
Well lobbying is ok. Bribing is not.
I guess we need to pay politicians enough. And have very very strict checks on their wealth. Maybe even only pick people with no families and don't allow them property. That would essentially eliminate bribery. Question is what else would it do... Nothing is so simple in the end.
But yes any such system has to be very simple at it's core.
[dead]
Can anyone name any other industry that is as open and transparent about power and water usage as the IT industry? How much energy does your local oil refinery, metal smelter, borax plant use?
Large data center operators are already far more transparent with their annual reports than any other industry.
A french article on the same subject, but paywalled.
https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2026/04/17/comm...
Archive link: https://archive.is/k4Pxr
That’s the opposite of what we’re looking for here.
Data centers are uber resource hogs: land, water, power. They compete for the same resources as other industries but also against the local citizenry. Who benefits from mass consumption of the resources and at what cost. Age old debate.
One out of three. Datacenters use small land and water compared to just about any other industry. The power consumption is significant.
Have you always had similar things to say about the paper industry?
Indeed, their argument makes no sense. They would probably complain about any industry building large factories. It seems they don't like progress, and not even the status quo, they would prefer regression.
Yes
Paper provides an actual utility that people want and serves a real human need. Hyper scale data centers only exist to make Garfield porn and help scammers.
You are using HN which may or may not be hosted in datacenter.
To reach HN you are probably hopping via some communication hubs that may be located in datacenter.
You are going to store to buy some stuff which probably hosts their infra in a datacenter or use datacenter services.
You do use mobile phone? Well they also need to host services somewhere and make connectivity.
The school where your kids go either uses school management software and/or websites which provide educational material or doing exams.
Then you have online video conferencing...
I mean this list could get pretty long - I think listing them here on HN is kind of useless. It is just the datacenter infra is at the very bottom, providing foundational but invisible service to end users. Just like we don't see how things are manufactured or how raw materials are sourced for making real stuff, same goes with datacenter.
This is what we call "an opinion".