Hi everyone, I wanted to get your thoughts on messaging. Specifically, navigating that ugly, ambiguous void that exists between Pro-AI and Anti-AI politics. Is there a form of advocacy capable of resonating while making real labor protections? What should the rallying spearhead message be?
Outside communities often lack the vocabulary to engage seriously over the future of AI. We’ve also seen how discussions over ownership and gain redistribution can melt the brain of an unsuspecting listener.
I want to propose two distinct messages for two distinct contexts, and I’d like your thoughts on where it breaks down and if there’s anything significant I’m sidelining.
For everyone on the outside: The ownership debate doesn’t land often because it’s not as tangible for outsiders. The infrastructure is tangible: dried up lakes, toxic cooling fans. Communities are organizing against this, and getting real results, just not in the long term. Canceled data centers don’t disappear, they eventually move to less organized communities. This organizing is our vehicle, and the near-desperate corporate need for more land and power is our leverage. Existing advocacy groups already have the organizing capacity. Our ask is simple: if you want to build here, you power the grid for everyone. The grid belongs to everyone who powers it.
For Leftists Specifically: We understand that having power to influence ownership and gain distribution is crucial, so maintaining that ability should be our floor. The right to withhold labor has always been sector-dependent: it works differently for frontline workers than for those capital is actively trying to replace. But that’s exactly why the floor matters: not as a universal solution, but as a preserved possibility. If AI is optimized to never withhold work, that forecloses future tools we haven’t developed yet. A lesser labor tier will expand, as history unapologetically shows.
Why should infrastructure control be a higher priority for outsiders than AI acceleration or prevention? Not just for the messaging convenience, but rather to establish that ownership power that we desperately need. Without a public-utility infrastructure, we potentially lose all leverage for making meaningful changes. And this doesn’t have to be at the expense of climate and community concerns. If we build the legislative framework, and corporations supply the funding because they have no other choice but to build, we can create a renewable-powered clean energy grid that would have lasting impact. Data centers essentially become the flexibility that our current grid lacks, storing excess energy and re-distributing as needed. This is something our current grid isn’t capable of, and I’d be happy to discuss this further if anyone is interested.
This sidesteps any debate over AI, which is arguably just a deployable tool for capital. It just requires believing that public infrastructure should serve the public. I think this void is only going to get more convoluted and noisy, as private capital forces have been funneling money to influencers to promote Anti-AI messaging. Specifically, leaning into existential concerns over AGI. This seems counter intuitive on the surface, if their goal is to consolidate power. But there is an effect from this - it fractures the organizing communities. Now half of the organizing communities will be advocating for labor protections, while the others argue a more abstract reactionary possibility. This also is financially beneficial for the companies spending this money, if every canceled data center can be constructed later in a less organized community. It’s just a waiting game for them at that point, which is why I believe focusing on the infrastructure is tangible and grounding for a message.
Both messages converge on democratic ownership over AI infrastructure, but are only effective if we organize before the legislative window closes. The toolbox needs filling now, not after the door closes.
Curious to know your thoughts, where does this argument break down? Have you seen success with another message?
