New York’s Ban on the Future 94%

By Josh Wolfe

7/15/2026, 5:35:24 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 73.6% saturation with 128 hits. Analysis detected 835 faulty-reasoning hits from 174 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 90.8% and a BS Rank of 94% (1,036 of 16,550 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 93.70% of the article peer group.

New York, birthplace of the power grid, the transistor’s commercial triumph, and the modern corporation, just became the first state in America to ban the future for at least a year. 
This week, Governor Kathy Hochul signed an executive order imposing a moratorium on new data centers. 
She has sold the policy as a prudent pause to protect electricity bills, water, and the grid. 
“As data-center development threatens to hike up utility bills, deplete our natural resources, and create uncertainty for New Yorkers, it’s my responsibility to take action and lead,” she said Tuesday. 
But strip away the press-release piety and you find something simpler, sadder, and short-sighted: pure political posturing. 
Why sign this order now? 
Because the political winds shifted and Albany licked its finger. 
A recent Siena poll found that 46 percent of voters, squeezed by electric bills up nearly 68 percent since 2019, support a moratorium on data-center construction, and Hochul, facing a reelection battle this year, clearly thinks her anti-data-center stance is good politics. 
Confirmation Bias
19.5%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
24.1%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
5.7%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
38.5%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
27.6%
Negativity Bias
37.4%
Self-Serving Bias
24.1%
Fundamental Attribution Error
9.8%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
24.1%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
19.5%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
9.8%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
24.1%
Appeal to Emotion
17.2%
Begging the Question
17.2%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
29.9%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
2.9%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
21.3%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
17.2%
Quote-first Misdirection
17.2%
Biased Writer Voice
73.6%
Indoctrination
9.8%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
9.2%

174 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.