Researchers Find Disinformation in Datacenter Industry Campaigns

By Amara Osei

A Build American AI advertisement claimed that datacenters have created 57,785 jobs in Texas, according to new research by Samuel Woolley, Dean Jackson and Maia Woluchem. The three researchers found that the industry uses propaganda, disinformation and information control to shape public opinion and undermine community opposition.

In May, Kevin O’Leary, the millionaire Shark Tank star developing one of the world’s largest datacenters, called two activists “proxies for the Chinese government.” Woolley, Jackson and Woluchem cited the episode in their research, noting that O’Leary later admitted he had “no evidence.”

Woolley is the Dietrich chair of disinformation studies and directs the Communication Technology Research Lab (CTRL) at the University of Pittsburgh. Jackson is a senior fellow at CTRL and a contributing editor at Tech Policy Press; Woluchem directs Data & Society’s Trustworthy Infrastructures Program and is a research fellow at CTRL.

What did the industry promise?

Big tech opened with a standard pitch: datacenters bring jobs and tax revenue, Woolley, Jackson and Woluchem said. It spread that message through mailers, text messages, TV spots and targeted digital ads.

Much of the multimedia spending flowed through opaque nonprofits and dark money groups with tech industry ties, according to the researchers. Elevate New Mexico presented itself as a local initiative while obscuring connections to corporate entities in the datacenter space.

What do technical labels conceal?

As environmental concerns mounted, the industry turned to misdirection and jargon, Woolley, Jackson and Woluchem said. Developers continue to use terms such as “closed-loop cooling” and “behind-the-meter power” to deflect concerns about water and power consumption.

The authors said these approaches can reduce consumption, but their effect is smaller than often implied. Closed-loop systems may shift water demand to power plants farther upstream in the supply chain; behind-the-meter generators still rely on the grid for backup and stability while competing with it for components.

How do job and tax claims hold up?

Woolley, Jackson and Woluchem identify Build American AI as an industry advocacy group connected to Lead the Future, an industry PAC funded by OpenAI and Andreessen Horowitz. They said such job figures often arrive without context, leaving unresolved how many promised positions are permanent after construction.

Service roles add uncertainty, according to the authors. Cafeteria workers, landscapers and custodial staff often work for subcontractors without benefits; the researchers also questioned whether those subcontractors appear in industry calculations of average salaries.

When companies cite tax revenue for communities, they rarely include exemptions and abatements they received, Woolley, Jackson and Woluchem said. The authors said incentives are often unnecessary to attract projects and can divert money directly from school and social-service budgets.

Some jurisdictions track the exact dollars they forgo through abatements, according to the researchers. Even where agreements allow communities to claw back money from underperforming projects, local leaders hesitate because recovery signals failure. The researchers characterized accountability as rare.

Where does project transparency break down?

The industry sometimes works with local authorities to keep critical project details under wraps, according to Woolley, Jackson and Woluchem. The authors found that most datacenters do not report water consumption at all, a gap that hampers policymaking. Nondisclosure agreements further limit public visibility into the process.

Local and state officials initially welcomed the facilities despite operating with little information and reduced resources after anti-tax policies, the authors said. Public skepticism grew, and some officials later joined residents in questioning the projects.

Organizers told the researchers that big businesses and opaque governments had effectively predetermined decisions about their economic future. They criticized limited transparency, late public consultation and community-benefit agreements they considered inadequate for higher electric costs, air pollution, noise, water depletion and changes in community character.

Google paid the city of The Dalles, Oregon, legal fees after withholding records about a datacenter’s water use, according to the authors. The city agreed to release the information in a settlement with the Oregonian newspaper.

Why are opponents cast as foreign proxies?

The authors report a growing effort to portray resistance as foreign influence. Voices ranging from tech leaders to the president have used the labels “Antifa,” “Commies” and “Chinese bots” for datacenter resistance. They have also called the resistance a “documented psyop” and a “Chinese PR thing.”

The researchers drew a historical parallel: industrial tycoons have long manipulated leaders, laws and regulations for their advantage, but resistance to datacenters has been fierce. Similar foreign-influence theories gained traction among technology executives and Washington policymakers, according to Woolley, Jackson and Woluchem. The claims reached local politics, where activists and organizers told the authors they faced this invective and worse online.

What should policymakers require?

The researchers called the reliance on disinformation ironic because datacenter proponents often use information manipulation to advance their case. They urged government decision-makers to reject top-down claims from Silicon Valley or the broader industry that community opposition is propelled by China.

Woolley, Jackson and Woluchem recommend creating and enforcing mandatory transparency requirements and other provisions that force datacenters to keep their promises. The rules would provide critical data on resource consumption, job creation and other public concerns. The researchers also want the requirements to extend to advertising and campaign finance, where disinformation and coordinated astroturf movements thrive.

If enacted, the proposed disclosures would put water, power, job quality and tax abatements in public view before local approvals. Woolley, Jackson and Woluchem argue that such verification is the practical route to accountability; without it, communities bear costs that opaque agreements and promotional claims can obscure.