Semafor84%

NY enacts data center moratorium 94%

By J.D. Capelouto89%

7/14/2026, 4:01:10 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Pessimism Bias, and In-Group Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 68.3% saturation with 82 hits. Analysis detected 522 faulty-reasoning hits from 120 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 89% and a BS Rank of 94% (1,475 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 93.30% of the article peer group.

New York’s data center moratorium, announced Tuesday, signals growing mainstream political pushback to unchecked AI growth in the US. 
The move puts a one-year suspension on construction of large-scale facilities in the state and is the first of its kind in the US, which is seeing a rapid AI infrastructure buildout to meet relentless demand for compute. 
Progressive candidates have capitalized on local opposition to data centers to win recent elections, “making the AI industry into a new bogeyman,” akin to how left-leaning activists made pro-Israel groups toxic in Democratic politics, Semafor’s David Weigel wrote. 
Americans’ confidence in Big Tech is at a new low, a Gallup poll showed, underscoring the challenge tech companies face. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.8%J.D. Capelouto: 3.2%Semafor: 4.7%Confirmation Bias15.8%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.0%Semafor: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 16.7%J.D. Capelouto: 9.8%Semafor: 5.5%Availability Heuristic16.7%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 1.8%Semafor: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.0%Semafor: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 1.4%Semafor: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 68.3%J.D. Capelouto: 32.0%Semafor: 15.9%Framing Effect68.3%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 1.1%Semafor: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 1.1%Semafor: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.0%Semafor: 0.5%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 2.7%Semafor: 4.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 31.7%J.D. Capelouto: 9.1%Semafor: 4.0%Pessimism Bias31.7%This article: 64.2%J.D. Capelouto: 28.9%Semafor: 12.8%Negativity Bias64.2%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.6%Semafor: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.2%Semafor: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.4%Semafor: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 31.7%J.D. Capelouto: 2.9%Semafor: 1.6%In-Group Bias31.7%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 1.9%Semafor: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.4%Semafor: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.0%Semafor: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 6.7%Semafor: 3.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.3%Semafor: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.4%Semafor: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 31.7%J.D. Capelouto: 0.6%Semafor: 0.4%Straw Man31.7%This article: 16.7%J.D. Capelouto: 14.9%Semafor: 7.0%Appeal to Authority16.7%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.9%Semafor: 2.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 5.4%Semafor: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 31.7%J.D. Capelouto: 9.3%Semafor: 8.3%Hasty Generalization31.7%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 1.6%Semafor: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 2.1%Semafor: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 31.7%J.D. Capelouto: 6.8%Semafor: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion31.7%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.6%Semafor: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 15.8%J.D. Capelouto: 7.3%Semafor: 4.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.8%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.5%Semafor: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.4%Semafor: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 3.1%Semafor: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 2.5%Semafor: 2.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.0%Semafor: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 31.7%J.D. Capelouto: 10.4%Semafor: 5.1%Unattributed Quote31.7%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 9.6%Semafor: 3.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.8%J.D. Capelouto: 20.3%Semafor: 9.4%Biased Writer Voice15.8%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 1.8%Semafor: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 31.7%J.D. Capelouto: 2.1%Semafor: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias31.7%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 1.5%Semafor: 0.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%J.D. Capelouto: 1.3%Semafor: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

120 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker32%attributed speech82writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Weigel • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

David Weigel

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%David Weigel: 100.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%David Weigel: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-23.2 ptsWriter: 23.2%David Weigel: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.