New Report Details Global Community Backlash Against Big Tech's Data Center Boom

In their latest report, Where Cloud Meets Cement: A Case Study Analysis of Data Center Development, The Maybe—working in collaboration with public interest firm Computer Says Maybe—has pulled back the curtain on the accelerating global footprint of hyperscale data centers.

These massive facilities, which underpin artificial intelligence and cloud computing, are often positioned by tech companies and governments as symbols of innovation and local economic opportunity. But as the report reveals, the reality on the ground tells a more complicated—and often contentious—story.

Drawing on five months of fieldwork, interviews, and case study research across Chile, the United States, the Netherlands, Mexico, and South Africa, the report documents the wide-ranging environmental, political, and social consequences of data center expansion.

Researchers found that these centers—frequently consuming vast amounts of electricity and water—are being rapidly approved through opaque processes with minimal community input, and often under the influence of state incentives and corporate lobbying.

“Data centers are marketed as engines of innovation and local economic growth, but our research shows a different picture—one where communities are left in the dark, environmental ecosystems are strained, and governments often prioritize corporate incentives over public good,” said lead researcher Hanna Barakat.

The report offers striking examples of this tension. In Santiago, Chile, Google’s proposal for a large-scale data center was halted after local residents raised concerns over water consumption during a prolonged drought. A grassroots group, MOSACAT, led protests, filed legal challenges, and held direct talks with the company—eventually pushing Google to revise its design and implement a more water-efficient cooling system.

In the small town of Peculiar, Missouri, a $1.5 billion data center project was ultimately blocked by residents who challenged both corporate promises and the complicity of their own local officials. Organizing under the banner “Don’t Dump Data on Peculiar,” the community leveraged social media, town hall activism, and investigative research to reverse zoning changes and halt the project entirely.

Meanwhile, in Zeewolde, the Netherlands, Meta’s covert attempt to build the country’s largest data center—known internally as “Operation Tulip”—was met with sharp public scrutiny after investigative journalists and local activists exposed land deals, shell companies, and misleading economic claims. In response, national authorities imposed a moratorium on all hyperscale data center construction.

Across all five countries studied, the report identifies several consistent trends. Governments often position data centers as critical national infrastructure, sidelining communities from decision-making in the name of geopolitical competitiveness.

Technology companies are found to overstate economic benefits while obscuring environmental costs—particularly around energy use and water consumption. Public information about these developments is often inaccessible or shielded by non-disclosure agreements, forcing communities, journalists, and researchers to uncover vital details on their own.

Despite these challenges, the report points to growing momentum among local resistance movements. Communities have successfully delayed, altered, or canceled major projects using a combination of legal action, public protest, investigative journalism, and digital campaigning.

To improve outcomes and protect community interests, the authors recommend equipping local governments with the tools to critically assess corporate claims, mandating meaningful public consultation, supporting grassroots advocacy and litigation, enforcing transparency around environmental impact data, and fostering collaboration among communities facing similar pressures around the world.

As the global demand for AI and cloud services continues to soar, the authors urge stakeholders not to lose sight of who is affected by the infrastructure that makes it all possible. “This is not just about servers and silicon,” they write. “It’s about power—both electric and political—and who gets to shape the future of our digital society.”