[handoflixue]

It's hardly "changing the subject" to try and establish whether this is actually a proportional effort. Your concern should, in fact, be relative to the harm something does. A single car killing one person is not a reason to demand the abolishment of the automotive industry.

If you care about saving the environment, you could do vastly more by protesting a dozen different causes. You can't give any reason this cause is special - just vague "environmental and legal problems" that probably add up to a half-dozen anecdotes. Meanwhile, Google is out there spending hundreds of billions of dollars and racking up it's own record of proven environmental and legal problems, and you can't even bring yourself to say "yeah, and I condemn Google and all other data centers" - partly because you're using a data center to send the message in the first place

[danaris]

> It's hardly "changing the subject" to try and establish whether this is actually a proportional effort.

No, that's basically the definition of whataboutism.

We are talking about the problems with datacenters. You are trying to claim that we shouldn't be concerned with the problems of datacenters if we aren't at least equally concerned with the problems of X, Y, and Z other things.

There is no world in which that's a sound argument.

[jstummbillig]

There is a world. In that world data centers are not a net problem, but net solution.

Looking at car exhaust and concluding that cars must be bad would be a questionable conclusion. We tolerate them despite the pollution they cause, not for it.

The same can go for data centers, again, if you conclude that they are net solution. If you don't, then it won't for you. The market simply disagrees with you in that case.

[danaris]

This has nothing to do with "the market".

This is a handful of incredibly wealthy companies deciding for us all.

[handoflixue]

I guess we better go ban swimming pools: they kill people! people drown in them.

What possible counter-argument can you offer to that?