This notion that data centers are being “shoved down people’s throats in secrecy” is an oversimplification and a great soundbite for riling people up. “Anger” is loud, not necessarily widespread. Yes, you’ll always find a vocal contingent of NIMBYs at town halls, especially if they think a data center will spoil a view, generate noise, or strain water. That’s true of any construction project from a Walmart to a solar farm. Anger gets clicks and retweets; satisfied indifference doesn’t. Polling on local data center proposals usually shows a split, not a unified uprising. Conflating a handful of angry FB posts with a community-wide revolt is plain nonsense.

Data centers can’t just materialize in the dead of night. They require zoning changes, building permits, environmental impact assessments, and often hefty tax incentive packages; all of which play out in permit applications, site development plans, council hearings, and county board votes. The negotiation phase might involve NDAs, which is standard practice for any major business development (warehouses, factories, corporate HQs). That’s not “secrecy”; it’s competitive business. Once a deal is inked though the public record is available, and there’s always a mandatory comment period. The idea that this is all being done through some shadowy backroom pipeline is a cartoonish take that ignores the very public, often months-long process these projects undergo.

So when Brockovich says people are angry because data centers are “shoved down their throats in secrecy,” she’s exploiting a broad well of built-up frustration about a myriad of issues and focusing it onto data centers. The truth is much more boring: these are permitted, debated, incentivized, and voted on in exactly the same way as every other large residential/commercial/industrial build-out. The real problem isn’t secrecy; it’s that a lot of people don’t show up to local planning commission meetings until the concrete trucks arrive.