> Some obvious wordsmithing here intended to confuse. These are very weak arguments and I do not understand why it is a material concern to a Congressman
Interested to hear more!
> other than an interest to interfere in US commerce on behalf of foreign entities.
No longer interested!
The article does beat around the bush and the headline is clickbait. I assumed from the title that these datacenters were not paying their bills, but instead it's about the extent to which the operators should pay for public infrastructure built due to the datacenter being built. That's an interesting question, but I don't like the goalpost begin moved from "not paying their full costs" to "not paying what I define as a 'fair share'."
Interested to hear more!
> other than an interest to interfere in US commerce on behalf of foreign entities.
No longer interested!
The article does beat around the bush and the headline is clickbait. I assumed from the title that these datacenters were not paying their bills, but instead it's about the extent to which the operators should pay for public infrastructure built due to the datacenter being built. That's an interesting question, but I don't like the goalpost begin moved from "not paying their full costs" to "not paying what I define as a 'fair share'."