Let's start with WSJ, owned by Rupert Murdoch. It's a "publishing subsidiary of News Corp." Which was founded in Australia in 1915 for the explicit purpose of publishing anti-union propaganda to the miners.
Now let's look at the story, pushing/implying "they're into violence!!!". Let's *NOT* mention the numerous cases, even in red states, where county councils have rejected new datacenter construction, and the several cases where, when the council approved it in spite of voter disapproval, the ENTIRE COUNCIL was voted out.
And, of course, the implication that there's no real reason for it - let's ignore the price of electricity going up, water pollution, and usage of water - Erin Brockovitch notes a patter that they're being built in drough-ridden areas.
Oh, yes, I want to see the reaction of any of you pro-datacenter idiots on say, renting an apt near one, to the permanent hum and vibration.
All of that ignors that construction crews will be brought in from outside the area, and after it's built, there will be dozens - not hundreds, not thousands, of new jobs. And it will NEVER make up for the tax breaks.