A non-partisan guide

Weighing What You Read About This

This page isn't an argument for or against anything. It's a short, honest guide to sorting good information from bad on a topic where the internet is full of both — and where the loudest posts, on every side, are often the least careful. These habits work just as well on a claim you agree with as one you don't.

The honest starting point. Misleading posts come from both directions on this issue — some overstate the dangers, some wave them away. We've seen confident "facts" online that are simply wrong in both directions. So the goal here isn't to tell you what to think; it's to help you check anything — including what the City says — against real sources.

Six habits that catch most bad information

1. Read past the picture

A striking image is built to make you feel something quickly — before you think. Slow down and read the actual words. It's surprisingly common for a dramatic photo and the text attached to it to argue different, even opposite, things — a sign that whoever shared it may not have read it closely either.

2. Be suspicious of "always" and "never"

Real life is usually "it depends." When a post claims a data center never uses water, or always drains a community dry, that's your cue to look closer — because the truth has details. (For example: water use genuinely depends on the cooling type — some designs use almost none, others use a lot. We explain exactly how on How It Works and Water Usage.)

3. Check the claim against a source — not another meme

Ask a simple question: where does this come from? A screenshot is not a source. A neutral news outlet, a government agency, a university study, or a public record is. On this site, every significant claim links to where it came from, so you can check it yourself — start with our Sources page or the Concerns & Responses.

4. Watch for heat instead of light

ALL-CAPS, name-calling, "you'd be a fool to believe," or a single villain who explains everything — those are persuasion tactics, not evidence. A claim that's actually strong doesn't need to insult you into believing it. When the temperature goes up, your skepticism should too.

5. Notice what a post wants you to do

A lot of online content is designed to make you angry and hit "share" before you've checked it — that's how it spreads. If something is engineered to provoke a fast reaction, that's the moment to slow down, not speed up.

6. Check it even when you agree with it

This is the hardest one. We're all quickest to share things that confirm what we already think — which is exactly when a wrong "fact" slips through. If a post supports your view, hold it to the same standard you'd hold the other side's. That's the difference between being informed and being used.

Putting it together: one made-up example

Here's an invented post — not a real one, and not aimed at anyone — built to show what several of these tells look like at once. Read the bold words on the picture, then read the text underneath:

Illustrative example — a made-up post, not a real one

[ dramatic aerial photo of a construction site beside a river ] THESE THINGS RUIN EVERY TOWN THEY TOUCH.

Don't fall for the scare campaigns, folks. The truth is simple: these facilities are totally closed systems. They NEVER use local water and they ALWAYS lower everyone's power bill. Anybody who tells you different is just lying to you.

Three things should jump out:

The picture and the words don't agree. The image screams that these projects "ruin every town" — but the text argues the opposite, that they're harmless. A post at war with itself is a sign no one read it closely before sharing.
"NEVER" and "ALWAYS" are doing a lot of work. Both are false as stated. Water use depends on the cooling design, and these are large power users — the honest answers have details (see Water Usage and The Power Grid).
"Lying to you" is heat, not proof. The insult is there to make you feel certain without checking anything.

Notice this example isn't "for" or "against" the project — it's just careless, and careless comes from every direction. The fix is always the same: slow down, separate the claim from the emotion, and check it against a real source.

How to fact-check something you saw about this project

Find the specific claim underneath the emotion — what is it actually asserting? (e.g., "it will drain the lake," "it will lower your taxes.")
Look it up here. Try Concerns & Responses, the FAQ, or Case Studies — and follow the source links to the original.
Still unsure? Ask us. If a claim isn't addressed here, or you think we've gotten something wrong, tell us — we'll find the answer and add it. That's what Contact is for.

Hold us to this too. Everything above applies to the City as much as to anyone else. We'd genuinely rather you check our sources than take our word for it — and if you ever find something on this site that doesn't hold up, we want to know. That's the whole point of doing this in the open.