Crypto News: The beauty in uniting against data centers

I’m Lara Williams and this is Bloomberg Opinion Today, the totality of Bloomberg Opinion’s opinions. On Sundays, we look at the major themes of the week past and how they will define the week ahead. Sign up for the daily newsletter here. Subscribe to Bloomberg.com for unlimited access to all our coverage.

The Public vs. Data Centers

History is littered with examples of people uniting against a common enemy.

Take, for instance, Wednesday evening, when millions of people gathered to watch the solar eclipse. From my vantage point in Primrose Hill, it felt for a brief moment like we were cheering on the little straggler (the moon) as he briefly conquered our tormentor during the fifth heatwave of the summer (the sun). Feeling the air cool was a blessed relief.

Of course, we were actually united in awe rather than anger, and it’s fossil fuels we should really be mad at anyway. But there are more notable examples: World War II saw the capitalist US and communist USSR join forces with the UK, China and an array of other nations to bring down Nazi Germany. My fellow Brits have probably never felt closer than when we gathered around the livestream of a lettuce, willing it to defeat the then-Prime Minister Liz Truss.

Is artificial intelligence the next uniting force to rail against? Judging by the overwhelming backlash in the US to the data center boom, I’d say so.

Polling shows that a large majority of Americans across the red-blue divide not only oppose data centers in their localities but are also just down on AI. A staggering 73% don’t trust businesses to use it responsibly, while 79% believe it’ll reduce the total number of jobs in the US within the next decade.

Politicians have taken note: In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott has directed state regulators to conduct a comprehensive data center audit, assessing impacts on resources and local communities before authorizing connection to the power grid. That’s quite the move from a Republican politician who once hailed Texas as “the epicenter of AI development.” Though it may curry favor with voters in the Midterm elections, he has crossed his ally President Donald Trump.

Virginia Democrat Governor Abigail Spanberger, meanwhile, is trying to walk the thin line between public opinion and the state’s data center dominance. She has pushed back on a moratorium on new centers proposed by progressives in her party, saying, “Walking away from a technology that is going to continue to proliferate is walking away from the table.”

This moderation could be a mistake, notes Nia-Malika Henderson: “[It] will likely mean she is out of step with her party, Virginians and voters more broadly, who are demanding a bolder approach to what is becoming a runaway problem.”

Liam Denning writes that there’s a clear sense of direction here “taking us from areas of common-sense regulation such as water and energy use, toward blanket delays and bans.” Data center developers have shot themselves in the foot by prioritizing speed over building social acceptance.

Big Tech is clearly feeling the heat. What else could explain Mark Zuckerberg’s desperate pitch to portray Meta’s AI efforts as being “primarily” for people rather than companies, governments and institutions? In his 6,500 word essay he also announced the creation of a new $1 billion Future Is for Everyone Fund. Expense was clearly spared both on coming up with a decent name and finessing the details of what the fund is actually for.

There are many reasons why we should be suspicious of Zuckerberg’s charm offensive, which Dave Lee lays out here. Take for example, the $50,000 bonus given to teachers in Richland Parish, Louisiana courtesy of a tax windfall from a Meta data-center construction project. Zuckerberg offers that up as proof Meta’s “personal superintelligence” will have a positive impact on normal people, but he neglects to mention that his company managed to reduce its overall effective US federal income tax rate to just 3.5% in 2025.

Yet because the world works in mysterious ways, all this NIMBY-ism might actually turn out to be good for AI. Thomas Black looks back to the dot-com boom, when companies rushed to lay fiber-optic cables to unleash the internet. The resulting overcapacity caused a drop in bandwidth prices which led to several network companies and hardware suppliers going bust. In hindsight, it was the speed that doomed them, not supply – we still need new cables today.

This time around, people aren’t happy about the prospect of enabling more large language models, especially when it means building large, thirsty, energy-intensive warehouses near their homes. But Thomas doesn’t think that’ll make projects disappear. Instead, he says it’ll merely “slow down the construction of data centers” and relocate them to more business-friendly areas.

Just as with the solar eclipse, the big guy wins out in the end. But if continuing to fight back means that tech companies work harder for the public’s approval, it’ll be worth it.

Bonus Artificially-Intelligent Reading:

CoreWeave Is Facing Some Mighty New Rivals: Chris Bryant
Math’s AI Crisis Has a Lesson For the Rest of Us: Parmy Olson
How Much Longer Can China Afford Cheap AI?: Catherine Thorbecke

What’s the World Got in Store?

French wine harvests underway, Aug. 17 onwards: What Happens When Smoke Gets In Your Wines — Howard Chua-Eoan
US Initial Jobless Claims, Aug. 20: College Grads Struggle to Find Jobs. Non-Grads Are Giving Up — Justin Fox
Japan Inflation Rate, Aug. 21: Bessent’s Defense of the Yen Is a Risky Innovation — the Bloomberg Editorial Board

Parenting Problems

There’s no end to the discussions around the birth-rate collapse. Is it down to men not doing the dishes? Cost-of-living pressures? Women forgetting to keep track of their biological clocks? From the US to France, run by the childless Emmanuel Macron, political leaders are getting explicit about their desire for more babies.

What’s often not spoken about is the experience of parenting which is getting harder. The so-called “fertilization president” isn’t helping.

Take, for example, Trump’s proposed changes to the childhood vaccine schedule, which aren’t evidence-based in the slightest. Lisa Jarvis notes that the one likely impact is “making it harder for parents to protect their kids from preventable diseases.” While previously kids could get protected in just one trip, now parents will have to try and schedule in multiple visits in a year with their over-stretched pediatricians. That’s not just inconvenient, it’s dangerous.

Meanwhile, Trump is also trying to end Head Start, a 61-year-old federally subsidized preschool program for the neediest families. Mary Ellen Klas points out that this program is incredibly effective. It allows parents to work full-time while setting up their kids to become better students, earn higher wages, use fewer social services and have a lifetime of better health. Even the children of Head Start kids reap the benefits.

But the administration has now significantly watered down the standards used by more than 14,000 Head Start programs across the country, jeopardizing the childcare for countless families, many of them in rural areas.

Of course, it’s not just government policy making parenting harder. Abby McCloskey writes about how exhausting back-to-school season is for parents: “We’re buying new school shoes and uniforms. Signing up for piano, dance and baseball. And don’t forget end-of-summer grade-level parties. And new class welcome parties. And the evening events for parents.”

I don’t have children yet, but I was not psyched to hear Abby — who lived in London this summer with her family— say that this is a problem on my side of the pond, too.

Perhaps we can all collectively agree within the next few years that less is more when it comes to logistical demands. In the meantime, relief from Paw Patrol and Peppa Pig may still be weeks away, but parents should know they’re not alone.

Notes: Please send Paw Patrol insights and feedback to Lara Williams at lwilliams218@bloomberg.net.

We’re improving your newsletter experience and we’d love your feedback. If something looks off, help us fine-tune your experience by reporting it here.

You received this message because you are subscribed to Bloomberg’s Opinion Today newsletter. If a friend forwarded you this message, sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Unsubscribe
Bloomberg.com
Contact Us

Bloomberg L.P.
731 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022