OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Public Backlash Grows Against AI Data Centers

6 sources · updated 2026-09-17
Left 67% Center 33% Right 0%
2 left · 1 center · 0 right

What happened

Over a recent weekend, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei proposed slowing the pace of frontier AI model development, writing that a slowdown does not mean "halting model training or technical progress"; coverage also cited related slowdown pledges by OpenAI and xAI. On the following Monday, AI-infrastructure stocks sold off, with GE Vernova down almost 9 percent, Vertiv close to 8 percent, Caterpillar more than 4 percent, and Oracle almost 4 percent, while data-center REITs Digital Realty and Equinix also declined. A New York Times/Siena University poll of 1,503 likely voters in early September found 61 percent opposed construction of data centers to power AI and only 14 percent strongly in support. New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed an executive order temporarily preventing the state from approving new permits for large projects, saying the facilities "can only be built, should only be built in places that want them," and data-center moratoriums have been approved in Denver, Indianapolis, Asheville, Charlotte, and Reno.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 3 articles

2 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 2 of 3
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Shawmar Pitts, Sonya Sanders and New York Times and Siena University
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 2 of 3
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: poll, poll data
Credits another outlet 0 of 3
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 3
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 15, 21:47 UTC by TechCrunch, naming its source. First document 2 hours later, from The Verge (poll).
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage is more complete on the market facts and silent on a freeze already in force. It treats the possible AI slowdown as a Wall Street pricing event after Anthropic's weekend proposal, walking through Oracle's cloud bet and a slide in infrastructure names, but never reports that New York has already paused permits for large data-center projects. Right-leaning coverage, in National Review, says the state's moratorium 'misunderstands artificial intelligence,' and never mentions the selloff or who called for slower models. Left-leaning coverage on CNBC opens on the data-center boom hanging on two labs, and on suppliers who need that buildout to continue. National Review opens on New York's freeze and does not name those companies. Does the stock drop price a slower training cycle, a state that has already stopped permits, or both?
Bottom line

You could read CNBC on Wall Street's AI-slowdown scare and never learn New York had already paused large data-center permits, or read National Review and never learn infrastructure stocks sold off after Anthropic's proposal.

The receipts — 2 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • GE Vernova's stock dropped almost 9% on Monday numberin CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Data center moratoriums have been approved in Denver, Indianapolis, Asheville, Charlotte, and Reno contextin TechCrunch · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage framed the Monday selloff as proof that a data-center boom tied largely to Anthropic and OpenAI has left suppliers and cloud hosts exposed. CNBC reported that for Oracle, industrial firms such as GE Vernova, Caterpillar and Vertiv, neoclouds, and server makers, "ongoing success hinges on the buildout continuing," and quoted an unnamed tech investor saying "Any significant delay could cost them"; RBC's Rishi Jaluria called slower model training "likely a headwind" for Oracle's cloud-infrastructure business. The same outlets described a "burgeoning nationwide backlash" and a coming rush for AI debt at "significantly higher" rates after Amazon raised nearly $6 billion and Alphabet about $10 billion in euro bonds. The Verge stressed that among opponents, 56 percent favored limits and 38 percent a total ban, with environment and water usage the top reason at 32 percent, local-community impact at 21 percent, and general distrust of AI at 18 percent, while the issue registered under 1 percent as a midterm voting priority and neither party held a clear trust edge. Digital Realty CEO Andrew Power told CNBC the pledges are not "pencils down" or an "end-of-the-world storm," citing "tremendous digital transformation" that is "not connected to AI" and a $20 billion construction pipeline; JLL's Andrew Batson said "the real growth in data centers over the next handful of years is in inference" and that "Only 1 in 4 Americans use AI daily."
The Right View
National Review argued that New York's data-center moratorium "misunderstands artificial intelligence" and that fear should not drive AI policy.
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is that both markets and the public are already treating the buildout as fragile: infrastructure shares fell on a single weekend proposal, CNBC's unnamed investor warned that "Any significant delay could cost them," and the Times/Siena poll found 61 percent opposition to AI data centers, led by environmental and community concerns. The right's strongest argument, as put by National Review, is that measures such as New York's moratorium are fear-driven and "misunderstand" AI rather than track what the technology actually requires. The central unresolved tension is whether a pause in frontier training, layered onto local opposition, is a binding constraint on a buildout Wall Street has treated as open-ended, or whether that pause is being overread relative to still-unmet inference, commercial-cloud, and adoption demand.

6 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.