Futurism88%

New York Becomes First State to Ban AI Data Centers 89%

By Joe Wilkins85%

7/14/2026, 6:54:50 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 50.2% saturation with 248 hits. Analysis detected 1,840 faulty-reasoning hits from 494 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 81.9% and a BS Rank of 89% (2,395 of 20,498 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 88.30% of the article peer group.

Across the United States, lawmakers are increasingly caught between two competing pressures: the massive investment flowing into the tech industry to build AI data centers, and a growing, bipartisan backlash against those same facilities, not to mention the massive tech corporations funding them. 
In New York, governor Kathy Hochul is giving in to the former  at least on paper  by announcing a one-year, state-wide ban on new AI data center construction for facilities with an electrical capacity of 50 megawatts and up. 
It’s the first time a US state has imposed such a moratorium, highlighting persistent concerns over the rampant pollution , alarming water usage rates , and rising electricity prices . 
Per the City Reporter , the governor has ordered state utility regulators to draft “the strongest standards in the nation for data center development,” in order to guarantee that “when companies succeed because of New York, New Yorkers succeed too.” 
While the moratorium prevents new mega-facilities from popping up, the New York Department of Public Service will start plugging away on an environmental impact statement to use for assessing future data centers’ affects on water and air quality, in addition to their consumption of electricity and water . 
The timing of the temporary ban could not be more opportune for Democrats. 
With the 2026 midterm elections fast approaching, Democratic party leaders have been scrambling to regain the confidence of the party’s voting base , which has overwhelmingly embraced progressive, non-establishment Democratic candidates in recent elections. 
As Futurism noted back in April, opposition to AI would be a slam dunk with progressive voters and even moderate Republicans  though the party has been slow to capitalize on this opportunity, likely a result of the deep pocketed AI lobby , which has lavished the Democratic party with millions of dollars so-far in 2026. 
Notably, Hochul’s ban comes in place of a bill passed by the New York State Senate on June 4 which would ban data centers of 20 megawatts or more for up to a year. 
In addition to raising the maximum allowable size by 30 megawatts, Hochul’s executive order lacks other provisions included in the Senate bill, like a mandate that data center owners fund local infrastructure programs and submit to third-party audits. 
While the governor’s total ban is progressive relative to states like Ohio , the gap between the New York Senate bill and Hochul’s executive order clearly reflects the ongoing schism within the Democratic party. 
In effect, it signals that Hochul is ever-so-slightly less gung-ho about regulating the tech industry than her counterparts in the state legislature, putting her in a league more in-line with pro-tech industry Democrats like Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer and California’s Gavin Newsom , and less with party progressives like Vermont’s Bernie Sanders . 
More on AI data centers: The Economics of Data Centers Creating Jobs Are So Bad That They Sound Like a Joke 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.0%Joe Wilkins: 6.4%Futurism: 5.7%Confirmation Bias14.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.4%Joe Wilkins: 6.6%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic17.4%This article: 6.9%Joe Wilkins: 1.7%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic6.9%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.3%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Joe Wilkins: 3.7%Futurism: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias11.3%This article: 23.9%Joe Wilkins: 13.1%Futurism: 11.4%Framing Effect23.9%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.1%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.7%Futurism: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 2.1%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Joe Wilkins: 4.7%Futurism: 4.2%Pessimism Bias4.3%This article: 44.7%Joe Wilkins: 25.8%Futurism: 22.3%Negativity Bias44.7%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.4%Futurism: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 10.5%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias10.5%This article: 17.4%Joe Wilkins: 1.3%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias17.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.5%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 20.2%Joe Wilkins: 1.3%Futurism: 1.2%Halo Effect20.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.6%Futurism: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.9%Joe Wilkins: 2.3%Futurism: 2.2%Recency Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Joe Wilkins: 1.4%Futurism: 1.3%Ad Hominem11.3%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.8%Futurism: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.1%Joe Wilkins: 5.9%Futurism: 7.0%Appeal to Authority8.1%This article: 8.7%Joe Wilkins: 2.5%Futurism: 2.5%False Dilemma8.7%This article: 9.7%Joe Wilkins: 3.1%Futurism: 2.6%Slippery Slope9.7%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.6%Joe Wilkins: 13.1%Futurism: 10.4%Hasty Generalization2.6%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.0%Futurism: 0.9%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.9%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.2%Bandwagon6.9%This article: 21.7%Joe Wilkins: 11.2%Futurism: 9.3%Appeal to Emotion21.7%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.7%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.9%Joe Wilkins: 3.1%Futurism: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.9%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.1%Futurism: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.3%Joe Wilkins: 4.5%Futurism: 4.5%Anecdotal4.3%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.3%Joe Wilkins: 2.4%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.3%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.5%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 19.4%Joe Wilkins: 3.5%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote19.4%This article: 8.1%Joe Wilkins: 3.0%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection8.1%This article: 50.2%Joe Wilkins: 27.0%Futurism: 20.6%Biased Writer Voice50.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.8%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 13.2%Joe Wilkins: 4.8%Futurism: 2.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias13.2%This article: 11.3%Joe Wilkins: 0.5%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias11.3%This article: 4.3%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.3%

494 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers52%attributed speech237writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageKathy Hochul • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageCity Reporter • 40 words • 100.0% coverageNew York Department of Public Service • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageFuturism • 56 words • 100.0% coverageNew York State Senate • 34 words • 0.0% coverageKathy Hochul • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Futurism

100%flagged-word coverage
56 attributed words22% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Futurism: 100.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Futurism: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-67.1 ptsWriter: 67.1%Futurism: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-27.4 ptsWriter: 27.4%Futurism: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.9 ptsWriter: 8.9%Futurism: 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.