\n<\/p>\n
Amazon recently followed Microsoft\u2019s lead and said it will no longer use nondisclosure agreements<\/a> (NDAs) while negotiating with local governments over data centers.<\/p>\n On the latest episode of TechCrunch\u2019s Equity podcast<\/a>, Sean O\u2019Kane, Rebeccan Bellan and I discussed Amazon\u2019s announcement, which came in the middle of a longer blog post<\/a> making the case that data centers are actually good for communities.<\/p>\n Rebecca was a bit skeptical that the recent spate of data center moratoriums will have a lasting effect, especially since the moratoriums only last for a year or two and \u201cthese data centers aren\u2019t coming online for the next two, three, four, five years,\u201d though I countered that data center backers definitely seem worried.<\/p>\n Sean, meanwhile, suggested that a big reason for the backlash is the industry\u2019s poor communication.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve seen, through a lot of the controversy and backlash to AI and data centers, that the industry just does a really poor job explaining itself, and that they are obviously and constantly frustrated with the fact that most people can\u2019t envision a world in which this stuff is useful for them,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Keep reading for a preview of our conversation<\/a>, edited for length and clarity.<\/p>\n Sean O\u2019Kane:<\/strong> It\u2019s an interesting thing that it was sort of buried in the blog post and part of a larger story that Amazon\u2019s clearly trying to tell. I guess I understand why they weren\u2019t putting it in the foreground, but to me, this is at the root of so many of the problems that the tech industry currently faces when it comes to AI broadly, but data centers in particular.\u00a0<\/p>\n There are so many things that could be said about whether or not people should be worried about the effect that data centers have on their property values, on their electricity bills, on their water usage in the area, and whether or not those things are real problems, inflated problems, etc. etc.<\/p>\n I think so much of that just really goes back to the fact that a lot of these projects are being negotiated essentially in secret. Sometimes they\u2019re being negotiated [with the public knowing] that it\u2019s a data center, but just not knowing who\u2019s actually going to use it or occupy it at any point.\u00a0<\/p>\n This is a long-standing issue with the tech industry. I always go back to the mid-2010s when Uber was expanding really fast. Uber was one of the companies that really used this tactic a ton when it came to working with local governments. In particular, I remember I was working at The Verge at the time and we had a freelancer write a story about a city outside of Orlando where Uber\u00a0 was trying to negotiate tax subsidies to subsidize rides for people to use public transit after the Uber trip.<\/p>\n The whole thing was negotiated in secret. And not only that, which was frustrating on its face, but also, because of the secrecy, you could just see Uber getting really comfortable with asking for a lot of other stuff, too.<\/p>\n So there needs to be more of this. I\u2019m glad Amazon\u2019s doing this. We\u2019ll see if it actually does have any positive effect, but people are pretty entrenched right now.<\/p>\n Rebecca Bellan:<\/strong> Yeah, I\u2019m curious about what effect this will have and whether it will lead to communities successfully delaying or or killing any infrastructure that the companies need to build. What I\u2019ve heard from some people I\u2019ve spoken to, who deal with data centers every day, a lot of these moratoriums that are getting passed \u2014 and there are a significant number of them, including one recently in San Francisco<\/a>, which is pretty ironic \u2014 but they\u2019re only for like a year or two years.\u00a0<\/p>\n But these data centers aren\u2019t coming online for the next two, three, four, five years. All of the buildouts are going to be massively delayed for a number of reasons from zoning to funding. Of course, if the pushback keeps going, then it might have an effect, but I often wonder just how much of an effect this political pushback is having on this.<\/p>\n Anthony Ha:<\/strong> The moratorium I\u2019m most familiar with is the one in New York<\/a>. I believe it\u2019s a one year moratorium, and that\u2019s on permits for large projects. [Technically, it\u2019s until the state finalizes an environmental review process, which is expected to take a year.]<\/p>\n So already, there\u2019s some wiggle room within that. And often, they\u2019re framed as: \u201cIt\u2019s not like we think [data centers are] bad, let\u2019s not do this. It\u2019s [that] we need to take the time to study this.\u201d Which gives them a lot of room to say later on, \u201cActually, we\u2019ve decided this is great. We love it.\u201d<\/p>\n But you can tell that the people trying to build these data centers are worried, which is why you have these unhinged tweets from people like Trump or David Sacks. Only time will tell in terms how long and how deep that [community] resistance is, but I do think they are worried.\u00a0<\/p>\n It\u2019s also noteworthy that Microsoft, earlier this year, made a similar announcement<\/a> about not using NDAs. I don\u2019t think that getting rid of the NDAs automatically is going to make the people who opposed these data centers be like, \u201cGreat, let\u2019s let\u2019s do it. I\u2019m in.\u201d But I think the beginning of that conversation is, \u201cWell, we don\u2019t even know what the heck you\u2019re doing, because you\u2019ve negotiated all this stuff in secret.\u201d So it does seem like a good first step.<\/p>\n Sean:<\/strong> The larger problem here is just a communication problem, right? This is a problem I think that goes across the entire tech industry, but it\u2019s especially acute now, because we\u2019re living in the era of \u201cgoing direct\u201d and \u201cyou don\u2019t need to talk to the media, the media is dead,\u201d etc.\u00a0<\/p>\n And I\u2019m not trying to beat that horse, because we\u2019re in the media and [we] think we\u2019re still relevant. But we\u2019ve seen, through a lot of the controversy and backlash to AI and data centers, that the industry just does a really poor job explaining itself, and that they are obviously and constantly frustrated with the fact that most people can\u2019t envision a world in which this stuff is useful for them. And that\u2019s because, a lot of time, the [technological] ability\u2019s not there, and in part because they\u2019re just not explaining it well.\u00a0<\/p>\n I wrote a story last week about how it\u2019s been a year since we\u2019ve really heard Tesla beating its own drum about building towards what it originally was calling \u201csustainable abundance\u201d<\/a> and is now \u201camazing abundance\u201d as its mission statement. It\u2019s just wild to me that we\u2019re a year into that, and the company still doesn\u2019t have a very good definition of it, especially considering that they released this whole multi-page PDF laying it out when they announced this, and even Tesla\u2019s biggest fans criticized Elon Musk and Tesla for how unspecific it was. It read like LLM nonsense.<\/p>\n Anthony:<\/strong> One of the things this has made me think about is just the narrative and this sense that for a while, it really felt like it was being pushed down our throats \u2014\u00a0this idea of, \u201cThis is inevitable, this AI-driven future, and get on board or you\u2019re just going to be left behind.\u201d<\/p>\n Obviously that future is barreling ahead in a lot of ways, but in a few key ways, there have been these obstacles. What I\u2019ve really liked about that is this sense of \u201cNo, you actually have to make the case for it.\u201d You can\u2019t just say, \u201cThis is the future, shut up.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n And then specifically about Tesla and the abundance thing, what was shocking to me is not so much that they haven\u2019t come up with a definition of abundance, but that that was a promise that they were making in the first place. I think [that] speaks to how strange our relationship to Tesla, and particularly the people who are invested and ride-or-die for Elon, [has become.] It\u2019s not about, is this company going to sell a lot of cars? It\u2019s about this vision for remaking society. Or at least, that\u2019s what they\u2019re being sold.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission<\/a>. This doesn\u2019t affect our editorial independence.<\/em><\/p>\n