Amazon Strategised About Keeping Its Datacentres' Full Water Use Secret
Posted2 months agoActive2 months ago
theguardian.comTechstory
heatednegative
Debate
60/100
AmazonData CentersEnvironmental ImpactTransparency
Key topics
Amazon
Data Centers
Environmental Impact
Transparency
Amazon allegedly strategized to keep its data centers' full water usage secret, sparking concerns over environmental transparency and the tech industry's ecological footprint.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Active discussionFirst comment
3h
Peak period
13
0-12h
Avg / period
4.3
Comment distribution17 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 17 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 26, 2025 at 4:24 AM EDT
2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 26, 2025 at 7:52 AM EDT
3h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
13 comments in 0-12h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 3, 2025 at 1:20 PM EST
2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45710025Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 12:44:40 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
> “A document’s existence doesn’t guarantee its accuracy or finality,” she said. “Meetings often reshape documents or reveal flawed findings or claims.”
Here's a person trained to speak in half truths. Am I the only one to find this revolting? Please tell me I'm not alone.
The claims made by the document referred to in the article are potentially harmful to Amazon. If they were untrue and the truth painted Amazon in a better light, they would likely be willing to counter the article with information of their own.
That they instead respond with a total non-answer is a signal that either the document is accurate, or the truth is worse.
Because their current water use is much higher?
("Strategy" is a meaningless word here.)
Unfortunately, most of those people aren't elected.
Yes, we do need the data centers, but people have a saying too.
Unfortunately companies tend to negotiate special deals. And for what? How many local people actually get jobs in a date centre? A few security guards, cleaners and gardeners?
I've seen these things they do everything remote and if that doesn't work they fly in a team.
Think of the airports. Do we need them? Absolutely. Do people have a say? Yes they do. And that's the problem: they will always say sure but not in my backyard. Obviously no one wants an airport nearby, that's understandable. So in the end expanding an airport (and thus economy) becomes basically impossible.
But in case of airport there is at least a clear case to make. DataCenters? Not so much. Laymen are unable to make an educated decisions here hence they will always vote no.
Why arent these just closed systems?