[mindslight]

I think you misunderstood me. I was not arguing about the morality of what you said. Rather I was arguing about the practicality. For some things I think a mass repudiation of the social contract would hurt the people currently abusing the social contract at scale, more than it would hurt the masses. For the power grid it feels like the opposite dynamic. As things stand, the masses derive benefits from the highly organized technological system giving them each comparatively just a little electrical power. Meanwhile data centers can use the grid to bring down their costs, but if that option becomes prohibitive they can also just build on-site generation.

[Enginerrrd]

Ah... I understand what you're saying now, my apologies.

In that case though, I actually still disagree, but again I must refuse to elaborate. I will only say that in an asymmetric conflict, creativity disproportionately favors the underdog.

[mindslight]

Discussing security vulnerabilities and hypothetical balances of physical power isn't illegal. Or if you're hoping that by not stating what you see as vulnerabilities you won't be helping datacenters (/$whomever) to secure things, I'll point out that the novelty is likely to wear off after a couple uses anyway.

The crux of the matter here seems to be that the masses of individuals need the civilization-reliant power grid much more than an individual data center. And by the time we're considering direct attacks on datacenters, they'll most likely already be off the grid (nuisance noise might still be a motivation though, or general anti-tech sentiment). So we're really just talking about defending a facility from things like drones, which is a generally hot topic these days regardless.