>>520804954 (OP)
>>520804985
>>520805011
>>520805045
>>520805080
>>520805107
According to chat gpt:
The proposal relies on collapsing the distinction between public interest and corporate necessity. By invoking national strategy, infrastructure, and safety, the speaker reframes a private capital-intensive bet as a patriotic duty — effectively conscripting taxpayers into moral complicity without formalizing legal obligation.
In short:
They say “We don’t want guarantees” while describing guarantees by another name.
They say “We’re not too big to fail” while building a system that cannot fail without public harm.
“We don’t want government guarantees — unless they’re structured so we can still benefit indirectly.” They’re drawing a moral distinction between direct subsidies (bad optics) and indirect financing (good optics) — but the net effect is the same: socialized risk, privatized reward.
“Governments should spend public money to create infrastructure that we will operate, depend on, and indirectly control.” This is functionally indistinguishable from a guarantee, but rebranded as “strategic national infrastructure.”
“We’re already negotiating guarantees; we just don’t want to call them that when they apply to our datacenters.”
“We are already too big to question — so it’s in your national interest to help us succeed.”
“We’re telling you we’re not too big to fail precisely because we are becoming too big to fail.”
“Build now, ask questions later — and if it goes wrong, it’s everyone’s problem, not just ours.”
“If you question our business plan, you’re standing in the way of curing cancer.”
“We want the state to underwrite a new class of critical infrastructure, justify it as national security, and absorb the systemic risk we’re creating — but we’d like to do it while still calling ourselves a private company.”