**Listen on Apple Podcasts**

**Listen on Spotify**

Amazon has now joined Microsoft in announcing that it will stop using nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) when negotiating with local governments about data centers. Rebecca expressed some doubt about whether the recent wave of data center moratoriums would have any lasting impact, pointing out that these moratoriums typically only last a year or two, while "these data centers aren't coming online for the next two, three, four, five years." Anthony pushed back, noting that data center proponents clearly appear anxious. Sean weighed in, arguing that a major driver of the backlash stems from the industry's failure to communicate effectively. "We've 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't envision a world in which this stuff is useful for them," he said. Below is a preview of the conversation, edited for length and clarity.

Sean O'Kane: It's interesting that this was somewhat buried in the blog post, part of a broader narrative Amazon is clearly trying to construct. I understand why they didn't lead with it, but to me, this sits at the heart of so many problems the tech industry faces right now with AI broadly, and data centers specifically. There's so much to discuss about whether people should be concerned about data centers' impact on their property values, electricity bills, local water usage, and whether those concerns are legitimate, exaggerated, or something in between. I think most of it ultimately traces back to the fact that many of these projects are being negotiated essentially behind closed doors. Sometimes negotiations happen with the public aware that a data center is involved, but without knowing who will actually use or occupy it. This is a longstanding issue in the tech industry. I always think back to the mid-2010s when Uber was expanding rapidly. Uber was one of the companies that leaned heavily on this tactic when dealing with local governments. I specifically remember working at The Verge at the time when we had a freelancer write a story about a city outside Orlando where Uber was trying to negotiate tax subsidies to fund rides for people using public transit after their Uber trip. The entire thing was negotiated in secret. Beyond the frustration of the secrecy itself, you could see Uber becoming increasingly comfortable asking for all sorts of other things too. So we need more of this. I'm glad Amazon is taking this step. We'll see if it actually produces any positive results, but people are quite entrenched at this point.

Rebecca Bellan: Yeah, I'm curious what effect this will have and whether it will lead communities to successfully delay or kill infrastructure that these companies need to build. From what I've heard from people I've spoken with who work with data centers daily, many of these moratoriums being passed—and there are quite a few, including one recently in San Francisco, which is rather ironic—only last for a year or two. But these data centers aren't coming online for the next two, three, four, five years. All the buildouts will be massively delayed for various reasons, from zoning to funding. Of course, if the pushback continues, it might have an impact, but I often wonder just how much effect this political resistance is actually having.

Anthony Ha: The moratorium I'm most familiar with is the one in New York. I believe it's a one-year moratorium on permits for large projects. [Technically, it lasts until the state completes an environmental review process, which is expected to take a year.] So there's already some flexibility built in. And often they're framed as: "It's not that we think data centers are bad, let's not do this. It's that we need time to study this." Which gives them plenty of room to later say, "Actually, we've decided this is great. We love it." But you can tell that the people trying to build these data centers are worried, which explains the unhinged tweets from people like Trump or David Sacks. Only time will tell how long and how deep that community resistance runs, but I do think they're worried. It's also worth noting that Microsoft made a similar announcement earlier this year about not using NDAs. I don't think eliminating NDAs will automatically make opponents say, "Great, let's do it. I'm in." But I think the conversation starts with, "Well, we don't even know what you're doing because you've negotiated everything in secret." So it does seem like a good first step.

Sean: The bigger issue here is really a communication problem. This is something I think spans the entire tech industry, but it's especially acute now because we're living in the era of "going direct" and "you don't need to talk to the media, the media is dead," etc. I'm not trying to beat that horse, since we're in the media and think we're still relevant. But we've seen, through all the controversy and backlash to AI and data centers, that the industry does a really poor job explaining itself, and they're obviously and constantly frustrated that most people can't envision a world where this stuff is useful to them. That's partly because the technological capability isn't there yet, and partly because they're just not explaining it well. I wrote a story last week about how it's been a year since we've really heard Tesla beating its own drum about building toward what it originally called "sustainable abundance" and now calls "amazing abundance" as its mission statement. It's wild to me that we're a year into that, and the company still doesn't have a very good definition of it, especially considering they released a whole multi-page PDF laying it out when they announced this, and even Tesla's biggest fans criticized Elon Musk and Tesla for how unspecific it was. It read like LLM nonsense.

Anthony: One thing this has made me think about is the narrative and this sense that for a while, it really felt like it was being pushed down our throats—this idea of, "This is inevitable, this AI-driven future, and get on board or you'll be left behind." Obviously that future is barreling ahead in many ways, but in a few key ways, there have been obstacles. What I've really appreciated about that is this sense of "No, you actually have to make the case for it." You can't just say, "This is the future, shut up." And then specifically regarding Tesla and the abundance thing, what was shocking to me isn't so much that they haven't come up with a definition of abundance, but that it was a promise they were making in the first place. I think that speaks to how strange our relationship to Tesla has become, particularly for the people who are invested and ride-or-die for Elon. It's not about whether this company will sell a lot of cars. It's about this vision for remaking society. Or at least, that's what they're being sold.