[wewtyflakes]

I feel that the resentment to be short sighted. Datacenters do not vote, but people do. If a datacenter is in a locale, it gives those voters a de-facto, outsized, soft power.

[dheera]

No, it doesn't. Voters decide very little in the United States. People with money decide almost everything. They have better lawyers and better lobbyists than you do.

[wewtyflakes]

If you go in with the assumption that democracy does not work, then there is also no point in protesting, as being angry about datacenters would mean nothing anyway.

[dheera]

On the contrary, if democracy works, then there is no point in protesting, as you would just vote (or campaign and run for office) instead.

Most large scale protests are in fact because democracy failed to give the people a voice, and decisions were made without the input of the people.

[wewtyflakes]

If democracy does not work, the consequences for that are broader than considering the pros/cons of data centers.

[dheera]

And those consequences are happening

[johneth]

> If you go in with the assumption that democracy does not work, then there is also no point in protesting

You mean peaceful protesting. There are other kinds of protesting that may have better success.

[throwaway85825]

>gives those voters a de-facto, outsized, soft power

How?

[delecti]

You, via your electeds, (in theory) have more power over a datacenter in your own jurisdiction than not. Though that does depend a lot on your electeds not being in the pocket of the datacenter's owners, and on the regulatory environment of the country/state leaving power available to city/county officials to do anything.

[throwaway85825]

>(in theory) >leaving power available

This just sounds like 'no' but with extra indirection.