Futurism88%

Family Horrified When They’re Forced to Sell Their Beloved Home to Make Way for AI Data Centers 92%

By Joe Wilkins84%

7/18/2026, 1:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 56% saturation with 158 hits. Analysis detected 880 faulty-reasoning hits from 282 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 86.9% and a BS Rank of 92% (1,758 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 92.00% of the article peer group.

Like a tornado descending from the heavens, data centers are tearing through homes across the US, roaring like a jet engine , leaving schools without power , and decimating entire communities unlucky enough to stand in their path. 
Case in point, one Georgia family has been forced to sell their home, after the state utility concern decided it needed to build a new transmission line to connect new AI data centers. 
As reported by CBS , the Brown family of Coweta County, Georgia decided to sell their home to Georgia Power, rather than risk seizure by eminent domain . 
Ansley Brown, whose parents raised her in the home, told CBS, “it’s ours. 
It’s our family. 
We belong here.” 
The Browns are just one of likely 300 landowners who will have their property seized so that Georgia Power  a for-profit , investor-owned corporation  can make a cozy home for the tech industry. 
“To us it’s theft,” Browns’ mother told CBS . 
“It’s literally a billion-dollar company stealing land from smaller people, people who can’t fight back. 
We don’t have the money to fight Georgia Power.” 
For its part, the utility company told CBS they “have worked hard to be transparent, negotiate in good faith,” and “make the process as easy as possible.” 
The Browns, understandably, don’t see it that way. 
“You can’t tear down 35 miles of rural Georgia and it not hurt something or somebody,” the mother said. 
“And to say that you’re doing it in the name of data centers is a slap in the face to us, our community, our animals.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 6.8%Futurism: 6.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.7%Futurism: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.2%Joe Wilkins: 6.5%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic20.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.3%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 3.9%Futurism: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.8%Joe Wilkins: 13.2%Futurism: 11.3%Framing Effect18.8%This article: 3.2%Joe Wilkins: 1.1%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion3.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.7%Futurism: 0.7%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: 1.9%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Joe Wilkins: 4.7%Futurism: 4.4%Pessimism Bias2.8%This article: 56.0%Joe Wilkins: 25.8%Futurism: 22.5%Negativity Bias56.0%This article: 9.6%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.5%Futurism: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 12.4%Joe Wilkins: 1.2%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias12.4%This article: 5.3%Joe Wilkins: 0.5%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.3%Futurism: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 2.3%Futurism: 2.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.0%Futurism: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.6%Joe Wilkins: 5.8%Futurism: 6.8%Appeal to Authority9.6%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 2.6%Futurism: 2.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 12.4%Joe Wilkins: 3.0%Futurism: 2.5%Slippery Slope12.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.3%Futurism: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.7%Joe Wilkins: 12.7%Futurism: 10.5%Hasty Generalization17.7%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.1%Futurism: 1.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.5%Futurism: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 31.9%Joe Wilkins: 11.5%Futurism: 9.5%Appeal to Emotion31.9%This article: 3.2%Joe Wilkins: 1.7%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question3.2%This article: 11.7%Joe Wilkins: 3.0%Futurism: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.7%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.2%Joe Wilkins: 1.3%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof3.2%This article: 6.7%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.4%Appeal to Nature6.7%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 4.3%Futurism: 4.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.9%Joe Wilkins: 2.3%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.9%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.8%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground2.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.6%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.9%Joe Wilkins: 3.4%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote9.9%This article: 8.5%Joe Wilkins: 3.0%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection8.5%This article: 56.0%Joe Wilkins: 26.8%Futurism: 20.7%Biased Writer Voice56.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.8%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 5.0%Futurism: 2.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.5%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

282 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers17%attributed speech235writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageCBS • 28 words • 100.0% coverageAnsley Brown • 13 words • 0.0% coverageAnsley Brown • 3 words • 0.0% coverageAnsley Brown • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

CBS

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words60% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%CBS: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-67.2 ptsWriter: 67.2%CBS: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-10.2 ptsWriter: 10.2%CBS: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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