We Found the Hidden Cost of Data Centers. It's in Your Electric Bill [video]

Clear example of privatization of everything... until its the big corporations who need to get something done - then its socialism in disguise. And of course they hide all the deals behind closed doors so their customers can't see who all, and how much they're subsidizing.

If there is a sudden increase in demand/supply issues due to large corporations they should be the ones to subsidize the bill. I'd argue in the communities this affects they should be forced to cover for everyone who lives in the area for materially making their lives worse.

Not to mention utility companies should be forced to be transparent in the pricing/deals they make with tech companies. They are likely just luring them in with a deal and passing off the rest to their customers so they still don't lose out in the short term. They want the best of both worlds - still making all the same profits short term by passing on to customers while getting the long term lock-in for these data centers.

> socialism in disguise

I really dislike this kind of rhetoric. This has nothing to do with socialism. Corporations profiting from externalities and pushing costs onto regular workers is just capitalism. If you have a problem with it, maybe you have a problem with the inevitable concentrations of wealth and power which result from capitalism.

Well, what if the corporations would pay the bills - then they would increase the price of the product so the people would pay for it again. Now you can say that you do not use Metas or Googles products, but their business models is ads - and you DO pay the products advertised for.

In scenario 1, a corporation externalizes some of its costs. Those costs are then paid by people who may or may not actually use the corporation's product — people who never chose to be part of any transaction. This is coercive because the people paying for the corporation's externalities are forced to: they may not use the product, or do so to different degrees not proportional to the price they pay for the externality.

In scenario 2, the corporation does not externalize costs and raises their prices, offsetting costs by passing them on to their customers. The people paying the additional cost are those who know the price of what they are buying and willingly engage in the transaction for the good or service.

Do you understand why scenario 2 is bad and scenario 1 is less bad?

That is just a very simplified and incomplete model. I never owned a car, so should I advocate to stop all fundings for streets? Well I consume products build by other people that use cars to go to work. Now, if I don't consume drinks of the Coca Cola Company, what if my cleaning lady enjoys those in her break? Direct vs. Indirect is not a good measure of value, PRICE is.

> I never owned a car, so should I advocate to stop all fundings for streets?

Streets are generally paid for by taxes, which are categorically different than corporate profits. In theory taxes are under democratic control. If you don't want to pay for streets you don't use, you can vote for a politician who passes that law. You have no control over the governance of a private corporation, but it can still pass its costs on to you via externalities (in the absence of regulations preventing it from doing so).

> Now, if I don't consume drinks of the Coca Cola Company, what if my cleaning lady enjoys those in her break?

What are you even talking about? What is the externality here? The wages you presumably pay your cleaning lady are hers to do with as she wishes.