reSee.it - Related Video Feed

An environmental lawsuit was just filed against the city of Lakeville over a potential hidden data center. Not to mention this is being built right next to Lakeville South High School. The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy claims that the city violated state environmental law by conducting a review of a 1,360,000 square foot development without disclosing it's likely a data center. This matters because data centers have unique environmental impacts. The lawsuit points to 2,500,000 gallons of daily water use, noises from computers and ventilation, and a developer specializing in data centers as evidence that the city knew what this really was. MCEA wants the court to halt all development and require a full environmental impact statement.

Speaker 0: How would you feel if it was a hotel at the end of your vote? If your daughter was having to walk past one of these hotels every day? Speaker 1: I completely get it. I mean, local people, by and large, do not want these hotels in their towns, in their place, and nor do I. I'm completely at one with them on that. I'm not, in any way underestimating the strength of feeling that there is. The speakers acknowledge the strength of local opposition to these hotels. They express alignment with residents' views of concern today.

- Indianapolis residents organized to stop Google's proposed $1,000,000,000 AI data center on a 500-acre site, which reportedly would have used 1,000,000 gallons of water per day. Google withdrew its petition to build, preventing a city council vote. Community members described the victory as “we beat Google,” while warning the fight isn’t over and noting tactics used by a secretive tech company in Saint Charles, Missouri. Residents voiced fears about water supply, contamination, and rising electricity costs, with one farmer stressing the risk to livelihoods if water is unavailable. - The victory was celebrated as a win for community power, though participants cautioned that Google could reappear with a new plan in a few months. The broader context included concerns that big tech seeks data centers in communities, potentially impacting water and energy prices, and the possibility of revisiting projects once opposition fades. - An NPR overview on America’s AI industry highlighted concerns about data centers depleting local water supplies for cooling, driving up electricity bills, and worsening climate change if powered by fossil fuels. The IEA warns climate pollution from power plants serving data centers could more than double by 2035. In the Great Lakes region, water utilities, industry, and power plants draw from a shared resource; questions arise about how much more water the lakes can provide for data centers and associated power needs. - Examples cited include Georgia where residents reported drinking-water problems after a nearby data center was built; Arizona cities restricting water deliveries to high-demand facilities. The Data Center Coalition notes efforts to reduce water use through evaporative cooling versus closed-loop systems; a Google data center in Georgia reportedly uses treated wastewater for cooling and returns it to the Chattahoochee River. There is a push toward waterless cooling, with a balancing act described: more electricity to cool means less water, and vice versa. - Rising electricity bills are a major concern as data centers increase power demand. A UCS analysis found that in 2024, homes and businesses in several states faced $4.3 billion in additional costs from transmission projects needed to deliver power to data centers. The dialogue includes questioning why centers aren’t built along coastlines where desalination could be used at the companies’ own expense, arguing inland siting imposes greater resource strain on residents. - Financial concerns extend to tax incentives for data centers. GoodJobsFirst.org reports that at least 10 states lose more than $100,000,000 annually in tax revenue to data centers; Texas revised its cost projection for 2025 from $130,000,000 to $1,000,000,000 within 23 months. The group calls for canceling data center tax exemption programs, capping exemptions, pausing programs, and robust public disclosure. - The narrative concludes with a call to resist placing data centers in established communities, urging organized action and advocating for desalination and energy infrastructure funded by the data centers themselves. A personal anecdote about Rick Hill’s cancer recovery via Laotryl B17 and enzyme therapies is tied to a promotional plug: rncstore.com/pages/ricksbundle, discount code pulse for 10% off, promoting Laotryl B17 and related detox/purity kits.

The state of Louisiana has rolled out the red carpet for Meta and this data center. It's one of the biggest data centers on the planet. The site could fit 173 superdomes. It'll use enough electricity to power 2,000,000 homes. And Meta is only sharing in the costs for the first fifteen years of its operation. The majority of the details are being kept secret, meaning this very well could fuel higher electric bills for decades to come. The fourth wave of exploitation will be in your water and will come from your wallet. This is not a good deal for Louisiana, and it's not a good deal for anyone except Entergy and Meta. The first thing we can do is build understanding.

Jason introduces himself as Jason We The People, living at 1776 Boulevard in Freedom City, Michigan. He asserts a confrontation with the city council, insisting his name and address are his Fifth Amendment/constitutional rights and quips that the council’s bylaws cannot trump constitutional rights. He proclaims he doesn’t have to share information and suggests he could sue the city under 42 USC 1983, using it as his middle name in a combative line of defense. He discusses the Fifth Amendment takings clause, claiming it pertains to public use and argues that a data center is not public use, stating it should be a park or an old folks home instead. He asserts the takings clause is not complicated and urges the council to understand it. Jason attacks the council’s loyalty, asking how it feels to be a Benedict Arnold to the people and notes that no one supports the data center. He asks for those who do not support the data center and inquires about any questions from the attendees, claiming that Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder can see the issue. He questions remedies for forever chemicals and accuses the council of poisoning the land, suggesting foreign money might be involved and referencing Whittler being in trouble over that. He calls for FOIA requests to obtain every nondisclosure agreement from any council member, mayor, or city official, arguing that while the contents may be hidden, the existence of these NDAs would be revealed, creating potential conflicts of interest. Jason then asks about who is coming in to install underground generators, noting that large power lines are being installed and implying that a decision has already been made. He closes by presenting a list-like summary of “your people” and wishing them well, signaling a confrontational stance toward the city’s decisions about the data center.

The video documents a drive through rural farmland in Indiana to a growing AI data center. The area is described as “super rural,” with miles of farmland and few signs of life until the data center lights appear, creating a noticeable intrusion in an otherwise empty landscape. The narrator notes the drive covers “30 plus miles, maybe more of nothing but just beautiful rural farmland,” and expresses strong emotion about returning to this area after a year away. As the video continues, the scenery remains rural and expansive, with mentions of semi trucks and cement trucks on the way to the site. The narrator highlights the emotional impact of the development, stating, “the first time I drove this, it genuinely made me so emotional because I haven't been this way. I haven't left town in, like a year.” The content hints at a pause in filming near a small parking lot or staging area before continuing along the corridor toward the project. A key claim is that the Meta AI data center is being built on this farmland, consuming “beautiful farmland that we will never be able to replace.” The narrator emphasizes the contrast between the large land use for the data center and the relatively small number of jobs it will create, stating that it will “only employ one to 500 people,” which the speaker finds startling. The final sentiment underscores the perceived imbalance between the considerable land impact and the limited employment opportunity, describing the situation as “pretty fucking insane.” The video ends after confirming the path to the data center and the ongoing construction.

Meta is building a two gigawatt data center in Mansfield, Georgia, a facility so large it could cover a significant part of Manhattan. These data centers power AI tools but come with costs, including environmental impacts and strain on the power grid. Residents Beverly and Jeff Morris, whose home is less than 400 yards from the data center, are experiencing issues with their water quality, including sediment. They feel overwhelmed by the infrastructure changes and believe Meta should be responsible for the costs, such as replacing fixtures and lines. Data centers are considered a "hot item," and this supercomputer is built to power Grok. The question is posed: What is the true cost of the AI revolution, and who should be paying for it?

Miley Kaczynski, a lifelong Wisconsin resident living 1.6 miles downstream from the Meta Data Center in Beaver Dam, describes dramatic changes to a natural creek on her horse farm that have followed upstream construction. The creek, a 20-foot-wide, up-to-four-feet-deep waterway, had flowed reliably for decades as part of a connected system feeding into Beaver Dam Lake, until construction began upstream. Since then, the creek has stopped flowing even without rainfall, often returning only during brief wet periods, and when it does flow, it is sometimes cloudy and erodes the banks. This pattern has repeated dozens of times over a single construction season, leaving the creek dry half the time. Dust from construction covers her yard, turning grass white, and heavy dust plumes make her unable to see the hood of her truck while driving past the site. She notes this behavior is not consistent with natural variability or weather patterns and had never happened before. Kaczynski attempted to report these concerns to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), but found the system fragmented: reports are passed between departments and some are lost. She learned there is no single entity responsible for downstream impacts when large-scale construction disrupts a water system. Different permits govern activities locally, at the county and state levels, and some at the federal level. She emphasizes that this is a policy failure, not a failure of individual agency staff. She asserts that the law favors businesses over residents and that the creek’s flow appears correlated with upstream industrial activity, including daily blasting with dynamite during construction. When that discharge stops, the creek stops; when it resumes, water returns abruptly. Kaczynski highlights that corporations receive fast approvals and tax incentives with limited review, while residents must prove damage after the fact, at their own expense, against billion-dollar companies. She has spent significant time researching this issue (ten to twenty hours per week) and has faced high costs for water testing on her property (shipping a sample costs $121, with the test around $400 per test). Her property shows elevated strontium and other indicators consistent with deep groundwater influence, changes that coincide with upstream blasting and excavation, warranting independent investigation. If left unresolved, filters and additional testing could cost over $1,000, and her backyard footprint will be converted from permeable land to a paved industrial space of nearly 1,000 acres after construction. She explains the broader community impact: rural farmers and families cannot compete with corporate land purchases, leading to a loss of Wisconsin’s working landscapes as new projects fill in. A second data center is proposed in Beaver Dam. The city annexed land from her township, with Alliant Energy negotiating with farmers to sell collectively; once annexed by the city, rezoning proceeds to county oversight and is described as a rubber-stamp process. By the time residents learn it is a data center, it is too late to stop it. Township residents feel unrepresented—she lacks a representative at the city level, cannot legally prove damage before construction, and is left to navigate a system that she says is not prepared to protect residents. Kaczynski asks who will save her and others, noting that retroactive bills and a missing safety net leave them vulnerable. She ends by urging transparency and action, expressing gratitude for the hearing but lamenting that her full story has not been heard.

All of these stories from across the US are incredibly encouraging. The series demonstrates that what technocracy spells is a very dark future—one where you can’t escape the eyes of big brother and AI spying on you twenty-four seven, controlling every aspect of your life. Digital currency and CBDCs are part of this vision, signaling a dystopian future. But we’re not against AI or innovation; we understand data centers are needed. The concern is the aggressive nature of the biggest players and the direction they want to take humanity. What these communities have demonstrated is that we have the right to protect where we live and those around us. If you want to build this infrastructure, do it on shorelines, set up your own desalination, and don’t touch our water. Figure out your own energy costs. Promises that data centers will cover a portion of their energy costs can be changed at any moment, so don’t fall for those assurances. The predator billionaire class companies, many with ties to Epstein, supposedly don’t care about us or our communities; they don’t care about protecting humanity. They care about building their technocracy—the endgame of Elon Musk’s grandfather’s vision for how the world should be run. We still have the power to say no and protect our local communities. No flock cameras. No data centers. We will remain untouched. If you want to build your dystopia, you can figure it out on your own elsewhere, away from these communities. This stance is actively affecting their plans. We applaud these communities and hope the last part of this series reminds people that they are not powerless. One woman organized an entire town and stopped that agenda in her town, and it is wonderful to see. Every one of us can do our part. If we understand the agenda and the endgame— which was the point of this series— we have the motivation to act.

Speaker 0 describes smart meters as more than just electricity meters, asserting they function as personal surveillance devices. They claim smart meters sense when devices are turned on or off, measure watt usage (even for small devices like an electric toothbrush), and transmit that data wirelessly through neighbors’ meters to the power company. The data allegedly records electric consumption every minute, stored forever on computers the public cannot access, revealing when someone is home, asleep, on vacation, hosting visitors, using lamps or tools, running a business from home, or bootlegging energy off the grid. The speaker asserts this creates a vivid profile of private living patterns and indicates at-home presence on the night of a murder. The speaker contends this is not electrical metering but personal surveillance—a warrantless search daily. They claim personal life information travels from the meter to the power company, to the government, police, and insurance companies, and to anyone who partners with the power company to access it. The speaker further asserts that even without a direct data-sharing agreement, information can be intercepted via the wireless signal from the meter, because smart meters are radio transmitters. They identify a one-watt radio station licensed by the FCC as the transmitter sending all electrical life details to a data center. Examples are given of authorities in Ohio, Texas, and British Columbia using smart meter data to pinpoint marijuana grow houses, enforce business licenses, and punish private home activities, implying surveillance beyond what residents accept. The claim is made that the power company can sell personal life data to anyone, and that unusual power usage patterns can be used as probable cause to raid a home for growing marijuana or running a computer server without a license. The speaker describes this level of surveillance as “about as big brother as it gets,” with utility workers going door-to-door to install meters. They express a personal opinion that smart meters should be removed from homes, arguing that power companies cannot claim the right to install surveillance devices on residences. They equate smart meters with wiretapping and note wiretapping is illegal in all U.S. states and federal territories. The speaker asserts that allowing a smart meter is tantamount to walking around with a constant webcam on one’s head and accuses the industry of relying on implied consent—the idea that permission is granted if the utility can change the meter, even if residents don’t understand the scope of what’s happening. As a practical step, the speaker advises telling utilities not to change the meter, noting that older meters were billed successfully. They claim to have sent a certified letter denying installation of a smart meter and mention a copy of their letter is available in the video’s description for viewers to adapt. They state post office certified mail is used to obtain a receipt. The speaker concludes that if the meters are installed on every house in America, it would cease to be America.

Bill Gates just last year in September created a deal with the 3 Mile Island Nuclear plant to reopen it just power Microsoft's data centers. You have the same thing going on with Google who's doing nuclear energy. I think they have a plant going up in Oak Ridge, Tennessee where the other nuclear incident happened. You have Amazon, they're building nuclear reactors at Hanford, and many other places. Meta just announced a twenty year deal as well with a nuclear facility for theirs. And so what you have is essentially they're they're going to be obviously absorbing all of this energy for themselves.

Miley Kaczynski, who lives 1.6 miles downstream from the Beaver Dam Meta Data Center, describes a natural creek on her property that has flowed for nearly fifty years but began behaving drastically after upstream construction of the data center. She states the creek, 20 feet wide and up to four feet deep, stopped flowing even with no rainfall, became cloudy and opaque with enough force to cause drastic erosion, and has dried up half of the past construction season. Dust from the construction covers her yard, turning grass white, and visibility on the road is severely reduced by thick dust clouds. She notes this behavior is not consistent with natural variability or weather patterns and has never happened before. Kaczynski explains she attempted to report the issue to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), but found the system fragmented: reports are passed between departments and can be lost, and she was informed there is no single entity responsible for downstream effects of large-scale construction on a water system. She says multiple permits govern activities at local, county, state, and federal levels, with no one looking at the whole picture or what happens beyond the project boundary. She emphasizes this is a policy failure rather than a failure of individual agency staff. She asserts the creek’s flow appears correlated with upstream industrial activity during construction, including daily blasting with dynamite; when discharge stops, the creek stops, and when it resumes, water returns abruptly. She claims corporations receive fast approvals, tax incentives, and limited review, while residents must prove damage after the fact at their own expense against billion-dollar companies. She has turned this into a part-time research effort, estimating costs for water sampling (shipping at $121 and testing around $400 per sample) and water treatment to block elevated metals like strontium. Kaczynski warns that nearly 1,000 acres of her backyard will be converted from permeable land to paved industrial space, reducing groundwater recharge and altering a community of farmers and working families. She laments rural Wisconsin losing its identity to data centers, noting that another data center is proposed in Beaver Dam. She describes the annexation of the land by the city, with Alliant Energy facilitating deals with farmers to sell collectively, and explains that after annexation the land goes to county rezoning with a “rubber stamp” process, making it difficult to halt. She claims damage cannot be legally proven before construction, so the process requires action at the city level, but the city did not focus on the data center in its hearings, making residents feel unrepresented and unable to vote or speak fully. She concludes that there is a lack of a working system to ensure permits are followed, with only one mining permit officer for the entire state, and she demands transparency and action from authorities, asking who will save her retroactively and expressing that her safety net is gone. She ends by asking for help and acknowledging the late start for her opportunity to speak.