Censorship Tracker Banned Me for Tracking Its Censorship

dickie · 7/25/2026, 6:31:04 AM · permalink

4 bumps

sacredcow · 7/25/2026, 12:33:08 PM · permalink

2 bumps

dickie · 7/25/2026, 6:01:52 AM (edited) · permalink

**TL;DR:** Neo accused me of posting “A.I. slop,” mocked formatting that looks normal from my end, demanded sources, and did all of this while having me blocked so I cannot see or answer his posts when logged in.  
  
The sources exist. Censorship Tracker’s Maine page appears to confuse two imported OpenStreetMap records with an actual statewide count, omits several local data-center moratoriums, and contains a stale description of the Jay project.  
  
So the irony is simple: Neo demanded proof while blocking the response, soj.ooo appears to render posts inconsistently, and Censorship Tracker is the actual polished slop: confident presentation covering incomplete data, undefined methodology, stale information, and missing context.
![image](https://us-lax-1.linodeobjects.com/sojooo/comments/2835/1784959311908-85b49db31bd8cb5c.jpg)
@neo commented on my post twice, accused me of using an “A.I. slop generator,” mocked the formatting, as he has me blocked so I can't see the posts while logged in.  
  
![image](https://us-lax-1.linodeobjects.com/sojooo/comments/2835/1784959387392-5c6665720f2d40d0.jpg)
  
  
The spacing looks completely normal from my end.  
  
So whatever neo saw was not what I saw. That points to soj.ooo rendering pasted formatting inconsistently, not to some forensic breakthrough proving how the text was written.  
  
Nice try blaming the user for the website’s formatting problem.  
  
Then neo posted:

&gt;   
&gt; Sources: Trust me bro  
&gt;   
&gt;

He blocked me so I can't see his posts while logged in. But he still posts in my threads. Dick move.  
  
That is an efficient debate strategy:  
  
1\. Make an accusation.  
2\. Blame the website’s apparent formatting defect on the person posting.  
3\. Demand sources.  
4\. Block that person before they can answer.  
5\. Pretend the absence of an answer proves there were no sources.  
  
The original post questioned Censorship Tracker’s Maine data-center coverage.  
  
The tracker displays two Maine data-center records, but its cited IM3 dataset is derived from crowd-sourced OpenStreetMap data. The IM3 description says it contains locations of existing facilities and identifies OpenStreetMap as its source.  
  
Meanwhile, Data Center Map lists 11 Maine facilities across eight markets.  
  
Neither source is an official statewide inventory. That is precisely the point.  
  
The number shown by Censorship Tracker represents what its imported dataset contains. It does not prove that Maine has only two data centers.  
  
The tracker also highlights the veto of LD 307 as Maine’s example of pushback while giving little indication of the substantial municipal activity that followed. Sanford, Westbrook, Brunswick, Gorham and Scarborough all moved to pause data-center development while considering local regulation.  
  
The Jay description also became stale when Sentinel Data Centers withdrew from the proposed project and the development was placed on hold.  
  
Those were the claims.  
  
Here are the sources:  
  
\- [Censorship Tracker data-center map](https://censorshiptracker.com/datacenters.php)  
\- [IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas, U.S. Department of Energy record](https://www.osti.gov/biblio/2550666)  
\- [IM3 Data Center Atlas](https://im3.pnnl.gov/datacenter-atlas)  
\- [Data Center Map: 11 Maine facilities across eight markets](https://www.datacentermap.com/usa/maine/)  
\- [Gov. Janet Mills’ official LD 307 veto announcement](https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-announces-decision-ld-307-2026-04-24)  
\- [Official LD 307 veto message explaining the 20-megawatt threshold](https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/official_documents/veto_messages/2026-04-ld-307-act-establish-maine-data-center-coordination)  
\- [City of Sanford: proposed emergency data-center moratorium](https://www.sanfordmaine.org/news_detail_T10_R211.php)  
\- [City of Westbrook: proposed 180-day data-center moratorium](https://www.westbrookmaine.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_05182026-1006)  
\- [Town of Brunswick: data-center moratorium materials](https://www.brunswickme.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/3965?fileID=35643)  
\- [Town of Gorham: June 2 council minutes](https://www.gorhammaine.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif4456/f/minutes/06-02-2026_regular_town_council_meeting_minutes.pdf)  
\- [Scarborough’s 180-day data-center moratorium](https://wgme.com/news/local/scarborough-town-council-to-vote-on-proposed-data-center-moratorium)  
\- [Maine Public: Jay project placed on hold after the developer withdrew](https://www.mainepublic.org/climate/2026-06-12/developer-halts-plans-for-data-center-at-former-jay-paper-mill)  
  
So yes, there were sources.  
  
Neo just made sure not to be present when they arrived.  
  
That is not serious discussion.  
  
That is ringing someone’s doorbell, shouting “prove it” through the mail slot, and sprinting away before the door opens.  
  
The spacing looks fine from my end.  
  
The sources exist.  
  
Censorship Tracker is the actual A.I. slop: a polished layout, an authoritative tone, dramatic slogans, undefined categories, incomplete imported data, stale entries and missing local context.  
  
It is a polished turd.  
  
The polish is doing all the work.  
  
Soj.ooo is the other kind of A.I. slop: buggy formatting, inconsistent presentation, and people blaming users for defects in the platform before blocking the reply.  
  
Censorship Tracker is what the slop generator produces after someone adds a logo.  
  
Soj.ooo is where the polished turd gets posted, rendered incorrectly, and blamed on the person who noticed the smell.

4 bumps

sacredcow · 7/25/2026, 12:33:57 PM · permalink

2 bumps

sacredcow · 7/25/2026, 12:31:07 PM · permalink

1 bump

dickie · 7/24/2026, 10:57:04 PM (edited) · permalink

The Maine section is not merely incomplete. It presents a partial dataset as though it were a meaningful statewide count.

Censorship Tracker does **not publish a usable definition** of a data center.

It calls the facilities “large data centers,” but provides no threshold for:

- Electrical demand
- Square footage
- Server capacity
- Number of racks
- Hyperscale versus colocation
- Dedicated facilities versus enterprise server buildings
- Edge facilities
- Cryptocurrency facilities
- Separate buildings on one campus

Its facility information comes from the IM3 Data Center Atlas, which was derived from OpenStreetMap.

IM3 describes that inventory as crowd-sourced and explicitly warns that facilities may be missing. It also warns that a campus and its individual buildings can both appear, creating possible duplicate or overlapping records.

Its classifications are essentially mapped points, buildings and campuses, not a clearly defined class such as “facilities consuming at least 20 megawatts.”

So the practical definition appears to be:

&gt; **Whatever somebody entered into OpenStreetMap and the IM3 import recognized as a data center.**

Therefore, “Maine has two” does not mean Maine has only two data centers.

It means the particular upstream dataset produced two Maine records that Censorship Tracker displayed.

For comparison, the commercial directory DataCenterMap currently lists **11 Maine facilities in eight markets**.

That directory is not an official inventory either, but the difference between 2 and 11 demonstrates that the tracker is measuring dataset coverage, not the actual number of facilities in Maine.

FirstLight alone advertises facilities in places including Brunswick, Bangor and Portland, while other operators list Maine facilities elsewhere.

There is another methodology problem.

Censorship Tracker says its map includes operational, proposed, under-construction, canceled and withdrawn projects. But the cited IM3 version describes itself as an inventory of **existing** facilities published in June 2025.

The tracker does not adequately explain where its proposed-project information comes from or how those entries are verified.

The statewide LD 307 veto is important, but it is nowhere close to the whole Maine story.

Municipalities have been imposing their own temporary restrictions while developing zoning, energy, water, noise, environmental and tax rules.

By July 2026, local action included at least:

- **Bangor:** Adopted a 180-day data-center moratorium on April 13, 2026.
- **Sanford:** Unanimously adopted a 91-day emergency moratorium on May 19 in response to a proposed project involving roughly 1,000 acres near the Mousam River.
- **Westbrook:** Unanimously adopted a 180-day moratorium on June 1.
- **Brunswick:** Adopted a 180-day moratorium on June 1 covering new or expanded facilities with at least one megawatt of capacity.
- **Gorham:** Adopted a data-center moratorium on June 2.
- **Scarborough:** Adopted a 180-day moratorium on June 3 amid consideration of a proposed west-side facility.

Gray was preparing a draft moratorium for formal consideration, and Wells had drafted unusually broad restrictions while debating how small a facility should qualify as a data center.

Those local definitions also illustrate why the tracker needs to disclose its own rule.

LD 307 covered facilities demanding **20 megawatts or more**, while Brunswick used **one megawatt**.

Wells considered definitions based partly on physical area and acknowledged that a very low threshold could capture ordinary businesses with sizable server rooms.

The tracker also describes the Jay development as the planned facility whose exemption caused Gov. Janet Mills to veto LD 307.

That accurately describes the veto dispute.

But in June 2026, Sentinel Data Centers withdrew from the project, leaving it on hold with its future undetermined.

A current tracker should say that.

&gt; Censorship Tracker displays two Maine facilities from an incomplete crowd-sourced mapping dataset. It does not establish that Maine has only two data centers, does not disclose a consistent size threshold, and records only one statewide pushback event while omitting a substantial wave of municipal moratoriums.

For a project advertising verification, this is a basic category error.

It has confused **the number of records it imported** with **the number of facilities that exist**.

6 bumps

H

hyokkim · 7/25/2026, 2:04:13 AM · permalink

4 bumps

dickie · 7/25/2026, 6:20:38 AM · permalink

2 bumps

neo · 7/25/2026, 4:59:52 AM · permalink

1 bump

neo · 7/25/2026, 4:05:02 AM · permalink

1 bump

Comments

Signature