Three reasons Meta will struggle with community fact-checking

Stay Ahead, Stay ONMINE

Three reasons Meta will struggle with community fact-checking

Earlier this month, Mark Zuckerberg announced that Meta will cut back on its content moderation efforts and eliminate fact-checking in the US in favor of the more “democratic” approach that X (formerly Twitter) calls Community Notes, rolling back protections that he claimed had been developed only in response to media and government pressure. The move is raising alarm bells, and rightly so. Meta has left a trail of moderation controversies in its wake, from overmoderating images of breastfeeding women to undermoderating hate speech in Myanmar, contributing to the genocide of Rohingya Muslims. Meanwhile, ending professional fact-checking creates the potential for misinformation and hate to spread unchecked. Enlisting volunteers is how moderation started on the Internet, long before social media giants realized that centralized efforts were necessary. And volunteer moderation can be successful, allowing for the development of bespoke regulations aligned with the needs of particular communities. But without significant commitment and oversight from Meta, such a system cannot contend with how much content is shared across the company’s platforms, and how fast. In fact, the jury is still out on how well it works at X, which is used by 21% of Americans (Meta’s are significantly more popular—Facebook alone is used by 70% of Americans, according to Pew). Community Notes, which started in 2021 as Birdwatch, is a community-driven moderation system on X that allows users who sign up for the program to add context to posts. Having regular users provide public fact-checking is relatively new, and so far results are mixed. For example, researchers have found that participants are more likely to challenge content they disagree with politically and that flagging content as false does not reduce engagement, but they have also found that the notes are typically accurate and can help reduce the spread of misleading posts. I’m a community moderator who researches community moderation. Here’s what I’ve learned about the limitations of relying on volunteers for moderation—and what Meta needs to do to succeed: 1. The system will miss falsehoods and could amplify hateful content There is a real risk under this style of moderation that only posts about things that a lot of people know about will get flagged in a timely manner—or at all. Consider how a post with a picture of a death cap mushroom and the caption “Tasty” might be handled under Community Notes–style moderation. If an expert in mycology doesn’t see the post, or sees it only after it’s been widely shared, it may not get flagged as “Poisonous, do not eat”—at least not until it’s too late. Topic areas that are more esoteric will be undermoderated. This could have serious impacts on both individuals (who may eat a poisonous mushroom) and society (if a falsehood spreads widely). Crucially, X’s Community Notes aren’t visible to readers when they are first added. A note becomes visible to the wider user base only when enough contributors agree that it is accurate by voting for it. And not all votes count. If a note is rated only by people who tend to agree with each other, it won’t show up. X does not make a note visible until there’s agreement from people who have disagreed on previous ratings. This is an attempt to reduce bias, but it’s not foolproof. It still relies on people’s opinions about a note and not on actual facts. Often what’s needed is expertise.I moderate a community on Reddit called r/AskHistorians. It’s a public history site with over 2 million members and is very strictly moderated. We see people get facts wrong all the time. Sometimes these are straightforward errors. But sometimes there is hateful content that takes experts to recognize. One time a question containing a Holocaust-denial dog whistle escaped review for hours and ended up amassing hundreds of upvotes before it was caught by an expert on our team. Hundreds of people—probably with very different voting patterns and very different opinions on a lot of topics—not only missed the problematic nature of the content but chose to promote it through upvotes. This happens with answers to questions, too. People who aren’t experts in history will upvote outdated, truthy-sounding answers that aren’t actually correct. Conversely, they will downvote good answers if they reflect viewpoints that are tough to swallow. r/AskHistorians works because most of its moderators are expert historians. If Meta wants its Community Notes–style program to work, it should make sure that the people with the knowledge to make assessments see the posts and that expertise is accounted for in voting, especially when there’s a misalignment between common understanding and expert knowledge. 2. It won’t work without well-supported volunteers Meta’s paid content moderators review the worst of the worst—including gore, sexual abuse and exploitation, and violence. As a result, many have suffered severe trauma, leading to lawsuits and unionization efforts. When Meta cuts resources from its centralized moderation efforts, it will be increasingly up to unpaid volunteers to keep the platform safe. Community moderators don’t have an easy job. On top of exposure to horrific content, as identifiable members of their communities, they are also often subject to harassment and abuse—something we experience daily on r/AskHistorians. However, community moderators moderate only what they can handle. For example, while I routinely manage hate speech and violent language, as a moderator of a text-based community I am rarely exposed to violent imagery. Community moderators also work as a team. If I do get exposed to something I find upsetting or if someone is being abusive, my colleagues take over and provide emotional support. I also care deeply about the community I moderate. Care for community, supportive colleagues, and self-selection all help keep volunteer moderators’ morale high(ish). It’s unclear how Meta’s new moderation system will be structured. If volunteers choose what content they flag, will that replicate X’s problem, where partisanship affects which posts are flagged and how? It’s also unclear what kind of support the platform will provide. If volunteers are exposed to content they find upsetting, will Meta—the company that is currently being sued for damaging the mental health of its paid content moderators—provide social and psychological aid? To be successful, the company will need to ensure that volunteers have access to such resources and are able to choose the type of content they moderate (while also ensuring that this self-selection doesn’t unduly influence the notes). 3. It can’t work without protections and guardrails Online communities can thrive when they are run by people who deeply care about them. However, volunteers can’t do it all on their own. Moderation isn’t just about making decisions on what’s “true” or “false.” It’s also about identifying and responding to other kinds of harmful content. Zuckerberg’s decision is coupled with other changes to its community standards that weaken rules around hateful content in particular. Community moderation is part of a broader ecosystem, and it becomes significantly harder to do it when that ecosystem gets poisoned by toxic content. I started moderating r/AskHistorians in 2020 as part of a research project to learn more about the behind-the-scenes experiences of volunteer moderators. While Reddit had started addressing some of the most extreme hate on its platform by occasionally banning entire communities, many communities promoting misogyny, racism, and all other forms of bigotry were permitted to thrive and grow. As a result, my early field notes are filled with examples of extreme hate speech, as well as harassment and abuse directed at moderators. It was hard to keep up with. But halfway through 2020, something happened. After a milquetoast statement about racism from CEO Steve Huffman, moderators on the site shut down their communities in protest. And to its credit, the platform listened. Reddit updated its community standards to explicitly prohibit hate speech and began to enforce the policy more actively. While hate is still an issue on Reddit, I see far less now than I did in 2020 and 2021. Community moderation needs robust support because volunteers can’t do it all on their own. It’s only one tool in the box. If Meta wants to ensure that its users are safe from scams, exploitation, and manipulation in addition to hate, it cannot rely solely on community fact-checking. But keeping the user base safe isn’t what this decision aims to do. It’s a political move to curry favor with the new administration. Meta could create the perfect community fact-checking program, but because this decision is coupled with weakening its wider moderation practices, things are going to get worse for its users rather than better. Sarah Gilbert is research director for the Citizens and Technology Lab at Cornell University.

The move is raising alarm bells, and rightly so. Meta has left a trail of moderation controversies in its wake, from overmoderating images of breastfeeding women to undermoderating hate speech in Myanmar, contributing to the genocide of Rohingya Muslims. Meanwhile, ending professional fact-checking creates the potential for misinformation and hate to spread unchecked.

Enlisting volunteers is how moderation started on the Internet, long before social media giants realized that centralized efforts were necessary. And volunteer moderation can be successful, allowing for the development of bespoke regulations aligned with the needs of particular communities. But without significant commitment and oversight from Meta, such a system cannot contend with how much content is shared across the company’s platforms, and how fast. In fact, the jury is still out on how well it works at X, which is used by 21% of Americans (Meta’s are significantly more popular—Facebook alone is used by 70% of Americans, according to Pew).

Community Notes, which started in 2021 as Birdwatch, is a community-driven moderation system on X that allows users who sign up for the program to add context to posts. Having regular users provide public fact-checking is relatively new, and so far results are mixed. For example, researchers have found that participants are more likely to challenge content they disagree with politically and that flagging content as false does not reduce engagement, but they have also found that the notes are typically accurate and can help reduce the spread of misleading posts.

I’m a community moderator who researches community moderation. Here’s what I’ve learned about the limitations of relying on volunteers for moderation—and what Meta needs to do to succeed:

1. The system will miss falsehoods and could amplify hateful content

There is a real risk under this style of moderation that only posts about things that a lot of people know about will get flagged in a timely manner—or at all. Consider how a post with a picture of a death cap mushroom and the caption “Tasty” might be handled under Community Notes–style moderation. If an expert in mycology doesn’t see the post, or sees it only after it’s been widely shared, it may not get flagged as “Poisonous, do not eat”—at least not until it’s too late. Topic areas that are more esoteric will be undermoderated. This could have serious impacts on both individuals (who may eat a poisonous mushroom) and society (if a falsehood spreads widely).

Crucially, X’s Community Notes aren’t visible to readers when they are first added. A note becomes visible to the wider user base only when enough contributors agree that it is accurate by voting for it. And not all votes count. If a note is rated only by people who tend to agree with each other, it won’t show up. X does not make a note visible until there’s agreement from people who have disagreed on previous ratings. This is an attempt to reduce bias, but it’s not foolproof. It still relies on people’s opinions about a note and not on actual facts. Often what’s needed is expertise.

I moderate a community on Reddit called r/AskHistorians. It’s a public history site with over 2 million members and is very strictly moderated. We see people get facts wrong all the time. Sometimes these are straightforward errors. But sometimes there is hateful content that takes experts to recognize. One time a question containing a Holocaust-denial dog whistle escaped review for hours and ended up amassing hundreds of upvotes before it was caught by an expert on our team. Hundreds of people—probably with very different voting patterns and very different opinions on a lot of topics—not only missed the problematic nature of the content but chose to promote it through upvotes. This happens with answers to questions, too. People who aren’t experts in history will upvote outdated, truthy-sounding answers that aren’t actually correct. Conversely, they will downvote good answers if they reflect viewpoints that are tough to swallow.

r/AskHistorians works because most of its moderators are expert historians. If Meta wants its Community Notes–style program to work, it should make sure that the people with the knowledge to make assessments see the posts and that expertise is accounted for in voting, especially when there’s a misalignment between common understanding and expert knowledge.

2. It won’t work without well-supported volunteers

Meta’s paid content moderators review the worst of the worst—including gore, sexual abuse and exploitation, and violence. As a result, many have suffered severe trauma, leading to lawsuits and unionization efforts. When Meta cuts resources from its centralized moderation efforts, it will be increasingly up to unpaid volunteers to keep the platform safe.

Community moderators don’t have an easy job. On top of exposure to horrific content, as identifiable members of their communities, they are also often subject to harassment and abuse—something we experience daily on r/AskHistorians. However, community moderators moderate only what they can handle. For example, while I routinely manage hate speech and violent language, as a moderator of a text-based community I am rarely exposed to violent imagery. Community moderators also work as a team. If I do get exposed to something I find upsetting or if someone is being abusive, my colleagues take over and provide emotional support. I also care deeply about the community I moderate. Care for community, supportive colleagues, and self-selection all help keep volunteer moderators’ morale high(ish).

It’s unclear how Meta’s new moderation system will be structured. If volunteers choose what content they flag, will that replicate X’s problem, where partisanship affects which posts are flagged and how? It’s also unclear what kind of support the platform will provide. If volunteers are exposed to content they find upsetting, will Meta—the company that is currently being sued for damaging the mental health of its paid content moderators—provide social and psychological aid? To be successful, the company will need to ensure that volunteers have access to such resources and are able to choose the type of content they moderate (while also ensuring that this self-selection doesn’t unduly influence the notes).

3. It can’t work without protections and guardrails

Online communities can thrive when they are run by people who deeply care about them. However, volunteers can’t do it all on their own. Moderation isn’t just about making decisions on what’s “true” or “false.” It’s also about identifying and responding to other kinds of harmful content. Zuckerberg’s decision is coupled with other changes to its community standards that weaken rules around hateful content in particular. Community moderation is part of a broader ecosystem, and it becomes significantly harder to do it when that ecosystem gets poisoned by toxic content.

I started moderating r/AskHistorians in 2020 as part of a research project to learn more about the behind-the-scenes experiences of volunteer moderators. While Reddit had started addressing some of the most extreme hate on its platform by occasionally banning entire communities, many communities promoting misogyny, racism, and all other forms of bigotry were permitted to thrive and grow. As a result, my early field notes are filled with examples of extreme hate speech, as well as harassment and abuse directed at moderators. It was hard to keep up with.

But halfway through 2020, something happened. After a milquetoast statement about racism from CEO Steve Huffman, moderators on the site shut down their communities in protest. And to its credit, the platform listened. Reddit updated its community standards to explicitly prohibit hate speech and began to enforce the policy more actively. While hate is still an issue on Reddit, I see far less now than I did in 2020 and 2021. Community moderation needs robust support because volunteers can’t do it all on their own. It’s only one tool in the box.

If Meta wants to ensure that its users are safe from scams, exploitation, and manipulation in addition to hate, it cannot rely solely on community fact-checking. But keeping the user base safe isn’t what this decision aims to do. It’s a political move to curry favor with the new administration. Meta could create the perfect community fact-checking program, but because this decision is coupled with weakening its wider moderation practices, things are going to get worse for its users rather than better.

Sarah Gilbert is research director for the Citizens and Technology Lab at Cornell University.

Stay Ahead

Explore More Insights

Stay ahead with more perspectives on cutting-edge power, infrastructure, energy, bitcoin and AI solutions. Explore these articles to uncover strategies and insights shaping the future of industries.

SATORP halts processing activities at Jubail refinery

Saudi Aramco Total Refinery & Petrochemicals Co.—a joint venture of Saudi Aramco (62.5%) and TotalEnergies SE (37.5%)—has temporarily shuttered units at its 460,000 b/d full-conversion refinery complex at Jubail, on Saudi Arabia’s eastern coast, following disruptions resulting from the ongoing war in the Middle East. In an Apr. 10 update

AI demand is so high, AWS customers are trying to buy out its entire capacity

Marquee names like Anthropic and Uber are “putting AWS’s efficiency claims to the test,” he noted; on the other hand, customers like Cohere and Stability AI prefer Nvidia’s mature tooling framework and “superior chip designs,” citing AWS service and availability issues. Moor’s Kimball pointed out that another factor to consider

Intel secures Google cloud and AI infrastructure deal

“Scaling AI requires more than accelerators – it requires balanced systems. CPUs and IPUs are central to delivering the performance, efficiency and flexibility modern AI workloads demand,” said Lip-Bu Tan, CEO of Intel in a statement. Google does offer custom Armv9-based Axion processors as an alternative to x86 based instances

Broadcom strikes chip deals with Google, Anthropic

Anthropic said this week that the AI startup’s annual revenue run rate has now crossed $30 billion, up from about $9 billion the previous year. “We are making our most significant compute commitment to date to keep pace with our unprecedented growth,” said Krishna Rao, CFO of Anthropic, in a

BW Energy granted 25-year extension of license offshore Gabon

BW Energy Gabon has received approval from the Ministry of Oil and Gas of the Gabonese Republic to extend the Dussafu Marin production license offshore Gabon, West Africa. The license period has been extended to 2053 from 2028, inclusive of three 5-year option periods from 2038 onwards. The prior contract was until 2038 inclusive of two 5-year option periods from 2028 onwards. The extra time “provides long-term visibility for production, investments, and reserve development” of the operator’s “core producing asset,” the company said in a release Apr. 7. Ongoing license projects include MaBoMo Phase 2, with planned first oil in second-half 2026, and the Bourdon development following its discovery last year. The timeline also “strengthens the foundation for future infrastructure‑led growth opportunities across the adjacent Niosi and Guduma licenses, both operated by BW Energy,” the company continued. The Dussafu Marin permit is a development and exploitation license with multiple discoveries and prospects lying within a proven oil and gas play fairway within Southern Gabon basin. To the northwest of the block is the Etame-Ebouri Trend, a collection of fields producing from the pre-salt Gamba and Dentale sandstones, and to the north are Lucina and M’Bya fields which produce from the syn-rift Lucina sandstones beneath the Gamba. Oil fields within the Dussafu Permit include Moubenga, Walt Whitman, Ruche, Ruche North East, Tortue, Hibiscus, and Hibiscus North. BW Energy Gabon is operator at Dussafu (73.50%) with partners Panoro Energy ASA (17.5%) and Gabon Oil Co. (9%). Dussafu.

Santos plans development of North Slope’s Quokka Unit

Santos Ltd. has started development planning in the Quokka Unit on Alaska’s North Slope after further delineating the Nanushuk reservoir. The Quokka-1 appraisal well spudded on Jan. 1, 2026, about 6 six miles from the Mitquq-1 discovery well drilled in 2020. It was drilled to 4,787 ft TD and encountered a high-quality reservoir with about 143 ft of net oil pay in the Nanushuk formation, demonstrating an average porosity of 19%. Following a single stage fracture stimulation, the well achieved a flow rate of 2,190 bo/d. Reservoir sands correlated between the two discoveries, coupled with fluid analyses, confirm the presence of high‑quality, light‑gravity oil, supporting strong well performance and improved pricing relative to Pikka oil. Together with additional geological data, these results underpin the potential for a two‑drill‑site development with production capacity comparable to Pikka phase 1, the company said. Rate and resource potential for the two-drill-site development is being evaluated. Resource estimation is ongoing and appraisal results will be evaluated as part of the FY26 contingent resource assessment. In FY25, Santos reported 2C contingent resources of 177 MMboe for the Quokka Unit. Based on these results, Santos has started development planning, including the initiation of key permitting activities. Santos is operator of the Quokka Unit (51%) with partner Repsol (49%).

Fluor, Axens secure contracts for US grassroots refinery project

Fluor Corp. and Axens Group have been awarded key contracts for America First Refining’s (AFR) proposed grassroots refinery at the Port of Brownsville, Tex., advancing development of what would be the first new US refinery to be built in more than 50 years. Fluor will execute front-end engineering and design (FEED) for the project, while Axens will serve as technology licensor of core refining process technologies to be used at the site, the service providers said in separate Apr. 7 releases. The AFR refinery is designed to process more than 60 million bbl/year—or about 164,400 b/d—of US light shale crude into transportation fuels, including gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Contract details Without disclosing a specific value of its contract, Fluor said the scope of its FEED study will cover early-stage engineering and design required to define project execution, cost, and schedule based on a complex that will incorporate commercially proven technologies to improve efficiency and emissions performance while processing domestic shale crude. As technology licensor, Axens said it will deliver process technologies for key refining units at the site, including those for: Naphtha, diesel hydrotreating. Continuous catalytic reforming. Isomerization. Alongside supporting improved fuel-quality specifications, the unspecified technologies to be supplied for the refinery will also help to reduce overall energy consumption at the site. Axens—which confirmed its involvement since 2017 in working with AFR on early-stage development of the project—said this latest licensing agreement will also cover engineering support, equipment, catalysts, and services across the refinery’s process configuration. Project background, commercial framework Upon first announcing the project in March 2026, AFR said the proposed development came alongside an already signed 20-year offtake agreement with a global integrated oil company covering 1.2 billion bbl of US light shale crude, as well as capital investment to support construction. As part of the

EIA: US crude inventories up 3.1 million bbl

US crude oil inventories for the week ended Apr. 3, excluding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, increased by 3.1 million bbl from the previous week, according to data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). At 464.7 million bbl, US crude oil inventories are about 2% above the 5-year average for this time of year, the EIA report indicated. EIA said total motor gasoline inventories decreased by 1.6 million bbl from last week and are about 3% above the 5-year average for this time of year. Finished gasoline inventories increased while blending components inventories decreased last week. Distillate fuel inventories decreased by 3.1 million bbl last week and are about 5% below the 5-year average for this time of year. Propane-propylene inventories increased by 600,000 bbl from last week and are 71% above the 5-year average for this time of year, EIA said. US crude oil refinery inputs averaged 16.3 million b/d for the week ended Apr. 3, which was 129,000 b/d less than the previous week’s average. Refineries operated at 92% of capacity. Gasoline production decreased, averaging 9.4 million b/d. Distillate fuel production increased, averaging 5.0 million b/d. US crude oil imports averaged 6.3 million b/d, down 130,000 b/d from the previous week. Over the last 4 weeks, crude oil imports averaged about 6.6 million b/d, 9.1% more than the same 4-week period last year. Total motor gasoline imports averaged 571,000 b/d. Distillate fuel imports averaged 152,000 b/d.

Oil prices plunge as Iran war tensions ease amid tentative Hormuz reopening

Crude oil prices plunged sharply on Apr. 7 after US President Donald Trump announced a conditional 2-week ceasefire agreement with Iran, contingent on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and restoring safe passage for energy shipments. Both Brent and WTI crude oil fell towards $95/bbl, marking their largest single-day decline since 2020. Under the agreement, Iran signaled willingness to halt attacks on shipping and allow transit through Hormuz while broader negotiations continue. The US also indicated it would assist in clearing a backlog of tankers and stabilizing maritime traffic. Benchmark crude prices initially surged above $110/bbl in early April amid fears of prolonged supply disruption after Iran effectively restricted traffic through the strait—a corridor responsible for roughly 20% of global oil flows. The blockade, triggered by escalating US-Iran hostilities, caused tanker traffic to collapse and stranded millions of barrels of crude and refined products in the region. Despite the price correction, analysts caution that supply disruptions and infrastructure damage will continue to constrain markets. The conflict has already impaired regional energy assets, including LNG infrastructure in Qatar, and forced producers across the Middle East to curtail output or delay exports. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) warned that fuel prices may remain elevated for months even if flows normalize, citing logistical bottlenecks, depleted inventories, and continued geopolitical uncertainty. “In theory, the 10–13 million b/d of crude oil and product supply stranded behind the Strait should now be gradually released. Whether the pre-March status quo will be re-established depends entirely on whether the truce can be turned into a permanent peace during the negotiations in Pakistan,” said Tamas Varga, analyst, PVM Oil Associates. “What appears evident, at least for now, is that the current quarter, the April–June period, will be the tightest, as the scarcity of available oil, both crude and refined

EIA: Brent crude to reach $115/bbl in second-quarter 2026

Global oil markets have entered a period of acute volatility, with prices expected to surge into second-quarter 2026 as war-driven supply disruptions in the Middle East constrain flows through the Strait of Hormuz, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s April Short-Term Energy Outlook. The agency estimates that Brent crude averaged $103/bbl in March and will climb further to a quarterly peak of about $115/bbl in second-quarter 2026, reflecting a sharp tightening in global supply following widespread production shut-ins across key Gulf producers. The disruption stems from the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint that typically carries nearly 20% of global oil supply. The US-Iran war in the region has forced producers including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, and the UAE to curtail output significantly. EIA estimates that crude production shut-ins averaged 7.5 million b/d in March and will rise to a peak of 9.1 million b/d in April. In this outlook, EIA assumes the conflict does not persist past April and that traffic through the Strait of Hormuz gradually resumes. Under those assumptions, EIA expects production shut-ins will fall to 6.7 million b/d in May and return close to pre-conflict levels in late 2026. The scale of the outage has rapidly flipped the market from prior expectations of oversupply into a pronounced deficit, with global inventories drawing sharply during the second quarter. Despite an assumption that the conflict does not persist beyond April, the agency warns that supply chains will take months to normalize, keeping a geopolitical risk premium embedded in prices through late 2026. EIA forecasts the Brent crude oil price will fall below $90/bbl in fourth-quarter 2026 and average $76/bbl in 2027, about $23/bbl higher than in its February STEO forecast. This price forecast is highly dependent on EIA’s assumptions of both the

AI is a Positive Catalyst for Grid Growth

Data centers, particularly those optimized for artificial intelligence workloads, are frequently characterized in public discourse as a disruptive threat to grid stability and ratepayer affordability. But behind-the-narrative as we are, the AI‑driven data center growth is simply illuminating pre‑existing systemic weaknesses in electric infrastructure that have accumulated over more than a decade of underinvestment in transmission, substations, and interconnection capacity. Over the same period, many utilities operated under planning assumptions shaped by slow demand growth and regulatory frameworks that incentivized incremental upgrades rather than large, anticipatory capital programs. As a result, the emergence of gigawatt‑scale computing campuses appears to be a sudden shock to a system that, in reality, was already misaligned with long‑term decarbonization, electrification, and digitalization objectives. Utilities have been asked to do more with aging grids, slow permitting, and chronically constrained capital, and now AI and cloud are finally putting real urgency — and real investment — behind modernizing that backbone. In that sense, large‑scale compute is not the problem; it is the catalyst that makes it impossible to ignore the problem any longer. We are at a moment when data centers, and especially AI data centers, are being blamed for exposing weaknesses that were already there, when in reality they are giving society a chance to fix a power system that has been underbuilt for more than a decade. Utilities have been asked to do more with aging grids, slow permitting, and limited investment, and now AI and cloud are finally putting real urgency — and real capital — behind modernizing that backbone. In that sense, data centers aren’t the problem; they are the catalyst that makes it impossible to ignore the problem any longer. AI Demand Provided a Long‑Overdue Stress Test The nature of AI workloads intensified this dynamic. High‑performance computing clusters concentrate substantial power

From Land Grab to Structured Scale: Kirkland & Ellis Explains How Capital, Power, and Deal Complexity Are Defining the AI Data Center Boom

The AI data center market is no longer defined by speed alone. For much of the past three years, capital moved aggressively into digital infrastructure, chasing land, power, and platform scale as generative AI workloads began to reshape demand curves. But as Melissa Kalka, M&A and private equity partner, and Kimberly McGrath, real estate partner at Kirkland & Ellis, explain on the latest episode of the Data Center Frontier Show, the industry is now entering a more complex and more consequential phase. The land grab is over. Execution has begun. Capital remains abundant, but it is no longer forgiving. From Capital Rush to Capital Discipline As noted by Kalka and McGrath, the period from roughly 2022 through 2025 marked a rapid acceleration in AI infrastructure investment. Take-private deals involving CyrusOne, QTS, and Switch signaled a structural shift, while hyperscale demand scaled from tens of megawatts to hundreds, and now toward gigawatt-class campuses. But the current phase is not defined by a pullback in capital. Instead, it reflects an expansion of investment pathways and a corresponding increase in scrutiny. “There’s actually more deal flow now,” Kalka notes, pointing to the growing range of entry points across the capital stack, including development vehicles, yield-oriented structures, and private credit. With more capital chasing larger and more complex opportunities, investors are evaluating not just platforms, but the full lifecycle of assets from early-stage development through stabilization and long-term hold. That shift has pulled capital earlier into the process, where risk is higher and less defined. Power availability, permitting, and execution timelines are now central to underwriting decisions. What Defines a “Bankable” Platform In this environment, the definition of a bankable data center platform has tightened. Execution history remains foundational. Investors are looking for consistent delivery, operational reliability, and clean contractual performance. But those factors alone

CoreWeave and Bell Canada Reset AI Data Center Scale

From GPU Cloud to AI Factory Operator In sum, CoreWeave is moving beyond its origins as a fast-scaling GPU cloud built on scarcity. The company is increasingly positioning itself as an AI infrastructure operator, where competitive advantage comes from integration across hardware, networking, cooling, platform software, workload orchestration, and early access to NVIDIA’s latest systems. That positioning has been reinforced by NVIDIA itself. In January, NVIDIA outlined a deeper alignment with CoreWeave focused on building AI factories, accelerating the procurement of land, power, and shell, and validating CoreWeave’s AI-native software and reference architecture. The partnership also includes deployment of multiple generations of NVIDIA infrastructure across CoreWeave’s platform, including Rubin systems, Vera CPUs, and BlueField data processing units, alongside a $2 billion equity investment. No simple vendor relationship, this is co-development around physical AI infrastructure. Bell Canada and the Rise of Sovereign AI Capacity Viewed through that lens, Bell Canada’s Saskatchewan announcement can be seen as part of the same structural shift. On March 16, Bell and the Government of Saskatchewan unveiled plans for a 300 MW AI Fabric data center in the Rural Municipality of Sherwood, outside Regina. CoreWeave is expected to anchor the site’s NVIDIA-based GPU infrastructure, extending its AI-native platform into a sovereign, hyperscale, power-dense environment. BCE described the project as its largest-ever investment in the province and said it is expected to become Canada’s largest purpose-built AI data center campus. Bell projects up to $12 billion (CDN) in long-term economic impact, along with at least 800 construction jobs and a minimum of 80 permanent roles once the site is operational. More importantly, Bell is explicitly framing the development as a foundation for domestic compute capacity, positioning AI infrastructure as a national asset tied to economic growth and technological sovereignty. That project extends Bell’s broader sovereign AI strategy.

From Reactor Designs to Real Projects: SMRs Enter the Execution Era as AI Power Demand Accelerates

The pattern emerging is clear. The SMR story is no longer about reactor design. Recent announcements are centered on permits, fuel, supply chains, financing, and customer traction, i.e. the factors that determine whether SMRs become a viable market or remain a technology narrative. The conversation has transitioned from technically compelling reactor concepts to the harder problem of industrial execution. Through the first quarter of 2026, and especially in March, vendors moved beyond partnership announcements to concrete progress in licensing, fuel access, supply-chain development, control systems, customer alignment, and capital formation. The distinction now is between companies building credible deployment pathways and those still positioned around long-dated opportunity. At a high level, these developments fall into three categories. First, regulatory progress: the most difficult and time-consuming milestone. Second, efforts to establish manufacturing and fuel ecosystems that can support repeatable, fleet-scale deployment. Third, a broad repositioning toward power-intensive industrial users, utilities, and increasingly data center–driven load growth. The result is an SMR market that looks less like a single competitive race and more like a set of parallel business models converging on the same objective: dispatchable, carbon-free power that can be financed and deployed with greater predictability than traditional gigawatt-scale nuclear. X-energy: Building a Commercial Path to Scale X-energy has emerged as one of the more credible commercialization stories in the SMR market, with recent moves spanning capital markets, customer development, and supply-chain expansion. Reuters reported on March 20 that the company has confidentially filed for an IPO, aiming to capitalize on renewed investor interest in nuclear and rising electricity demand tied to AI infrastructure. That filing followed closely on an agreement with Talen Energy to evaluate multiple four-unit Xe-100 deployments across U.S. power markets, as well as a MOU with Japan’s IHI to expand U.S.-Japan supply chain capabilities for the reactor.

DCF Poll: Data Centers and the Public Trust Gap

Matt Vincent is Editor in Chief of Data Center Frontier, where he leads editorial strategy and coverage focused on the infrastructure powering cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and the digital economy. A veteran B2B technology journalist with more than two decades of experience, Vincent specializes in the intersection of data centers, power, cooling, and emerging AI-era infrastructure. Since assuming the EIC role in 2023, he has helped guide Data Center Frontier’s coverage of the industry’s transition into the gigawatt-scale AI era, with a focus on hyperscale development, behind-the-meter power strategies, liquid cooling architectures, and the evolving energy demands of high-density compute, while working closely with the Digital Infrastructure Group at Endeavor Business Media to expand the brand’s analytical and multimedia footprint. Vincent also hosts The Data Center Frontier Show podcast, where he interviews industry leaders across hyperscale, colocation, utilities, and the data center supply chain to examine the technologies and business models reshaping digital infrastructure. Since its inception he serves as Head of Content for the Data Center Frontier Trends Summit. Before becoming Editor in Chief, he served in multiple senior editorial roles across Endeavor Business Media’s digital infrastructure portfolio, with coverage spanning data centers and hyperscale infrastructure, structured cabling and networking, telecom and datacom, IP physical security, and wireless and Pro AV markets. He began his career in 2005 within PennWell’s Advanced Technology Division and later held senior editorial positions supporting brands such as Cabling Installation & Maintenance, Lightwave Online, Broadband Technology Report, and Smart Buildings Technology. Vincent is a frequent moderator, interviewer, and keynote speaker at industry events including the HPC Forum, where he delivers forward-looking analysis on how AI and high-performance computing are reshaping digital infrastructure. He graduated with honors from Indiana University Bloomington with a B.A. in English Literature and Creative Writing and lives in southern New Hampshire with

OpenAI puts part of Stargate project on hold over runaway power costs

OpenAI has postponed plans to open one of the data centers central to its Stargate project. It announced its plan to open the data center in the UK with great fanfare last September, when it was regarded as a major boost for the country’s nascent AI industry, as well as proving a step up for OpenAI’s international credentials. At the time, Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, said, “The UK has been a longstanding pioneer of AI, and is now home to world-class researchers, millions of ChatGPT users, and a government that quickly recognized the potential of this technology.” All of that has been quietly forgotten. The plans for the data center in Northumberland, in the Northeast of England, have been put on hold, with the project ready to be revived when the conditions are ripe for major infrastructure investment, according to a report by the BBC.

Microsoft will invest $80B in AI data centers in fiscal 2025

And Microsoft isn’t the only one that is ramping up its investments into AI-enabled data centers. Rival cloud service providers are all investing in either upgrading or opening new data centers to capture a larger chunk of business from developers and users of large language models (LLMs). In a report published in October 2024, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated that demand for generative AI would push Microsoft, AWS, Google, Oracle, Meta, and Apple would between them devote $200 billion to capex in 2025, up from $110 billion in 2023. Microsoft is one of the biggest spenders, followed closely by Google and AWS, Bloomberg Intelligence said. Its estimate of Microsoft’s capital spending on AI, at $62.4 billion for calendar 2025, is lower than Smith’s claim that the company will invest $80 billion in the fiscal year to June 30, 2025. Both figures, though, are way higher than Microsoft’s 2020 capital expenditure of “just” $17.6 billion. The majority of the increased spending is tied to cloud services and the expansion of AI infrastructure needed to provide compute capacity for OpenAI workloads. Separately, last October Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said his company planned total capex spend of $75 billion in 2024 and even more in 2025, with much of it going to AWS, its cloud computing division.

John Deere unveils more autonomous farm machines to address skill labor shortage

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More Self-driving tractors might be the path to self-driving cars. John Deere has revealed a new line of autonomous machines and tech across agriculture, construction and commercial landscaping. The Moline, Illinois-based John Deere has been in business for 187 years, yet it’s been a regular as a non-tech company showing off technology at the big tech trade show in Las Vegas and is back at CES 2025 with more autonomous tractors and other vehicles. This is not something we usually cover, but John Deere has a lot of data that is interesting in the big picture of tech. The message from the company is that there aren’t enough skilled farm laborers to do the work that its customers need. It’s been a challenge for most of the last two decades, said Jahmy Hindman, CTO at John Deere, in a briefing. Much of the tech will come this fall and after that. He noted that the average farmer in the U.S. is over 58 and works 12 to 18 hours a day to grow food for us. And he said the American Farm Bureau Federation estimates there are roughly 2.4 million farm jobs that need to be filled annually; and the agricultural work force continues to shrink. (This is my hint to the anti-immigration crowd). John Deere’s autonomous 9RX Tractor. Farmers can oversee it using an app. While each of these industries experiences their own set of challenges, a commonality across all is skilled labor availability. In construction, about 80% percent of contractors struggle to find skilled labor. And in commercial landscaping, 86% of landscaping business owners can’t find labor to fill open positions, he said. “They have to figure out how to do

2025 playbook for enterprise AI success, from agents to evals

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More 2025 is poised to be a pivotal year for enterprise AI. The past year has seen rapid innovation, and this year will see the same. This has made it more critical than ever to revisit your AI strategy to stay competitive and create value for your customers. From scaling AI agents to optimizing costs, here are the five critical areas enterprises should prioritize for their AI strategy this year. 1. Agents: the next generation of automation AI agents are no longer theoretical. In 2025, they’re indispensable tools for enterprises looking to streamline operations and enhance customer interactions. Unlike traditional software, agents powered by large language models (LLMs) can make nuanced decisions, navigate complex multi-step tasks, and integrate seamlessly with tools and APIs. At the start of 2024, agents were not ready for prime time, making frustrating mistakes like hallucinating URLs. They started getting better as frontier large language models themselves improved. “Let me put it this way,” said Sam Witteveen, cofounder of Red Dragon, a company that develops agents for companies, and that recently reviewed the 48 agents it built last year. “Interestingly, the ones that we built at the start of the year, a lot of those worked way better at the end of the year just because the models got better.” Witteveen shared this in the video podcast we filmed to discuss these five big trends in detail. Models are getting better and hallucinating less, and they’re also being trained to do agentic tasks. Another feature that the model providers are researching is a way to use the LLM as a judge, and as models get cheaper (something we’ll cover below), companies can use three or more models to

OpenAI’s red teaming innovations define new essentials for security leaders in the AI era

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More OpenAI has taken a more aggressive approach to red teaming than its AI competitors, demonstrating its security teams’ advanced capabilities in two areas: multi-step reinforcement and external red teaming. OpenAI recently released two papers that set a new competitive standard for improving the quality, reliability and safety of AI models in these two techniques and more. The first paper, “OpenAI’s Approach to External Red Teaming for AI Models and Systems,” reports that specialized teams outside the company have proven effective in uncovering vulnerabilities that might otherwise have made it into a released model because in-house testing techniques may have missed them. In the second paper, “Diverse and Effective Red Teaming with Auto-Generated Rewards and Multi-Step Reinforcement Learning,” OpenAI introduces an automated framework that relies on iterative reinforcement learning to generate a broad spectrum of novel, wide-ranging attacks. Going all-in on red teaming pays practical, competitive dividends It’s encouraging to see competitive intensity in red teaming growing among AI companies. When Anthropic released its AI red team guidelines in June of last year, it joined AI providers including Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, OpenAI, and even the U.S.’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which all had released red teaming frameworks. Investing heavily in red teaming yields tangible benefits for security leaders in any organization. OpenAI’s paper on external red teaming provides a detailed analysis of how the company strives to create specialized external teams that include cybersecurity and subject matter experts. The goal is to see if knowledgeable external teams can defeat models’ security perimeters and find gaps in their security, biases and controls that prompt-based testing couldn’t find. What makes OpenAI’s recent papers noteworthy is how well they define using human-in-the-middle

Stay Ahead, Stay ONMINE