Article · Technology · 3 min read
The coverage flagged the noisy age gap on AI data centres. It missed the real one.
Coverage of a Nanos poll on AI data centres highlighted an age gap on government subsidies, with a quote about a 20-something Canadian's job worries. That gap doesn't clear the two age groups' combined margin of error. The bigger age split, on whether the centres will hurt the economy, never made it into the story.
The Globe and Mail's own write-up of the poll it commissioned, "Majority of Canadians oppose government support for AI data centres, poll shows", reported the national topline accurately: 38% outright oppose government incentives for AI data centre construction, plus another 26% who somewhat oppose, two-thirds combined, matching Nanos's own "2 in 3 Canadians" framing. It went further than most coverage of a commissioned poll does and broke that opposition down by age, reporting it was "strongest among people aged 18 to 34, with 43.1 per cent against it," and quoting Nanos founder Nik Nanos: "If you're a 20-something Canadian, and you're hearing that the government wants to promote AI data centres, you might be wondering whether the government is investing in something that will put you out of a job." What the story didn't mention is that this particular gap, once margins of error are applied, isn't statistically distinguishable from chance. The gap the Globe left out entirely, on a separate question about whether the centres will hurt the economy, is the one that actually holds up.
A real gap on one question, noise on the other
The direction is consistent across two separate questions asked of the same sample, but the two gaps aren't equally solid:
| Age group | Say negative economic impact | Oppose government subsidies |
|---|---|---|
| 18–34 (n=151) | 38.0% ± 7.7pp | 67.2% ± 7.5pp |
| 35–54 (n=393) | 33.6% ± 4.7pp | 66.0% ± 4.7pp |
| 55+ (n=560) | 28.1% ± 3.7pp | 60.9% ± 4.0pp |
Age subgroups are smaller than the full sample, so their individual margins of error are wider than the survey's topline ±3.0 points, as much as ±7.7 points for the youngest group alone. Comparing the youngest and oldest groups directly, the 9.9-point gap on economic impact is just outside the combined 95% confidence interval (±8.6 points), so that one is a real, if modest, generational split. The 6.3-point gap on subsidies, the one the Globe quoted Nanos on, is inside its own combined interval (±8.5 points): directionally the same story, but not one this survey can distinguish from chance. Majorities in every age group oppose subsidies regardless of the age gap.
These two questions probably aren't measuring the same underlying attitude. Believing AI data centres will hurt the economy is a minority view at every age (28-38%); opposing government subsidies for them is a majority view at every age (61-67%). Nanos doesn't publish a joint breakdown of the two questions, but the gap between those two majorities implies that a large share of subsidy opponents don't think the centres will actually hurt the economy, which suggests the opposition is rooted at least partly in a broader skepticism of subsidizing private industry, not only AI-specific pessimism.
What got reported, and what didn't
Nanos flags its own statistically significant findings in the full "populated report" PDF as callouts under each table. On the subsidies question, that flag is regional: Prairie residents outright oppose subsidies at 49.9%, above even the 43.1% for 18-to-34-year-olds, and lead every group at 72.5% combined opposition. On the economic-impact question, the flagged difference is by gender, not region or age; Prairies (38.5% combined negative) is statistically tied with 18-34 (38.0%), not meaningfully more negative. The Globe's story mentioned neither the regional gap nor the gender gap. Between the two age gaps, it quoted a spokesperson on the noisier one and left the real one, on economic impact, out of the piece entirely.