"Lingering Questions in the Sky: Cloud Seeding, Texas Floods, and the Silence of Power"
As officials dismiss scientific inquiry as conspiracy, evidence mounts that weather modification programs—tied to hydropower and Big Tech—deserve urgent scrutiny.
As officials dismiss scientific inquiry as conspiracy, evidence mounts that weather modification programs—tied to hydropower and Big Tech—deserve urgent scrutiny. With AI infrastructure now federally deregulated, cloud seeding may quietly become the backbone of the digital economy.
We Need Facts—Not Fear, Not Dismissal
In the wake of the devastating July 4, 2025, floods in Texas, a surge of public concern has focused on the state’s under regulated cloud seeding operations. Among these concerns were several viral videos claiming “blue rain” falling days before the storm.
I’ll explain the origins of this video in a moment.
WATCH THE YANASA TV “AS A MAN THINKETH” EPISODE ON THIS
On the opposite extreme where official statements that categorically deny any connection between cloud seeding and extreme weather, without offering scientific data, transparency, or investigation.
The truth lies not in speculation, nor in blind denial, but in facts. Atmospheric science categorically does not rule out the scientifically plausible scenario that lingering aerosols, released just days prior, may have interacted with an already unstable atmosphere. To dismiss this possibility outright—without disclosing chemical dispersal data, flight paths, or modeling—is not scientific caution. It is institutional deflection with powerful interests.
If the American public is to have trust, then we must commit to full transparency, rigorous investigation, and a firm reliance on evidence—not ridicule or reflexive skepticism. Let’s examine the facts, the physics, and the policies and who benefits from shaping it.
Did Cloud Seeding Linger in Texas’s Atmosphere? The Science Officials Won’t Discuss
Several viewers recently pointed me to a viral TikTok video that claimed “blue rain” fell in Texas just days before the catastrophic July 4, 2025, floods. We have investigated this video and confirmed that, despite its recent surge online, the original footage was actually posted months earlier. The precise location—a Texas State Park—and its authenticity remain open questions. Still, the intent behind the video was clear: it aimed to raise public concern over Texas’s loosely regulated cloud seeding programs.
Regardless of whether the video itself was a hoax, it raises urgent and legitimate scientific questions about cloud seeding in Texas—questions that mainstream coverage and even some meteorologists have tried to dismiss as mere conspiracy theory.
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
Well Mike, we’re proving you wrong.
The Blue Rain Debate: What’s Really Possible?
To start, let’s address the “blue rain” phenomenon itself. Rain can take on an unusual hue for a variety of reasons, including:
The presence of unusual particulate matter or chemical contamination (industrial or natural),
Microbial blooms in reservoirs or lakes that become airborne,
Atmospheric scattering of light by fine aerosols,
The rare presence of high concentrations of metallic compounds, including silver.
Silver iodide (AgI), the chemical most often used for cloud seeding, is sometimes cited in this context. In very high concentrations—and under the right environmental conditions—silver compounds can oxidize or form particulate aggregates that slightly tint water grayish or bluish, especially under certain lighting. But let’s be clear: such visible effects would require levels much higher than typical cloud seeding operations. More plausibly, over-seeding or poor dispersal could lead to transient atmospheric haze or altered rainwater chemistry—not dramatic blue rainfall.
For the record Silver iodide is yellowish in color.
What Is Cloud Seeding—and What Was Done in Kerr County?
Silver iodide is chosen for weather modification because its crystal structure mimics that of ice, encouraging supercooled water in clouds to freeze and form precipitation. In Texas, AgI is usually dispersed via aircraft, flares, or ground-based generators, in trace quantities measured in micrograms per liter of air.
According to Rainmaker Weather Modification Technologies, cloud seeding did occur in Kerr County on July 2—two days before the flood disaster. The company claims their operations were minor, targeting two small clouds, and ended by mid-afternoon due to “excess atmospheric moisture.” As for chemical quantities, flight logs, and atmospheric data? No public records are available.
Their official position, echoed by local officials, is that the cloud seeding had no effect on the July 4th storm. According to them, all silver iodide was “washed out” within a few hours and could not possibly have contributed to the catastrophic rainfall that followed.
Why Dismissing Cloud Seeding Concerns as “Conspiracy” is Scientifically Irresponsible
In a recent NBC News segment, meteorologist Chase Cain and a weather modification executive attempted to explain away public concerns about cloud seeding and its possible relation to the deadly July 4 Texas floods. The segment, while informative in parts, relied heavily on false dichotomies and incomplete science, presenting the public with a choice between outright conspiracy and total dismissal. This is a dangerous framework.
The public is not asking whether cloud seeding caused the flood in a direct, one-to-one relationship. They’re asking whether residual silver iodide (AgI) from documented seeding operations could have lingered in the atmosphere and interacted with an unstable, moisture-rich storm system two days later. That’s a valid question rooted in atmospheric science—not online hysteria.
When scientists and journalists frame all scrutiny of environmental engineering as “conspiracy theory,” they shut down legitimate inquiry, protect powerful industrial interests, and corrode the very scientific trust they claim to defend.
First of all, Cloud Seeding is not just performed for Agriculture and the Ecosystem. I’m going to explain to you some of the largest most intentional seeding operations in the United States and what they are really used for in a moment.
This is also where the video takes an odd turn. In an effort to defend cloud seeding they will actually deny it’s effectiveness and then blame increased rainfall on “Climate Change.”
One has to ask a serious question. If climate change is causing more rain fall and cloud seeding is arguably ineffective why are so many billions of dollars being invested into it. Seriously if Epstein didn’t have a client list, and didn’t blackmail anyone, why was he put in jail? Why does his defense attorney claim there is one?
Not to go down a separate path but seriously? Courts were able to identify victims and participants during trial but now we’re being told it never happened?
This is likely one of the most embarrassing pieces of journalism I have encountered. Let me explain why. Then let’s deep dive into what science actually tells us.
The label “conspiracy theory” is often used not to clarify, but to delegitimize public concern, particularly when that concern intersects with large-scale economic or government programs. It's a rhetorical weapon that allows officials and media outlets to avoid transparency, ignore nuanced scientific discussion, and protect the reputations of industriesthat stand to benefit from public ignorance.
In this case, cloud seeding programs—backed by utilities, water districts, and indirectly by tech infrastructure like data centers—are rarely disclosed in detail to the public. When people ask questions about their environmental impact or operational timelines, they're often met with derision instead of data
Counterarguments to the NBC Segment’s Claims
Claim 1: "Cloud seeding can’t cause flooding. The amount of precipitation is too small."
Counter: No serious critic is arguing that cloud seeding alone caused the floods. The question is whether residual AgI particles could have influenced storm dynamics under extreme atmospheric conditions. Scientific literature confirms that 1 µm-sized particles can remain aloft for days, particularly in humid, turbulent environments—exactly the setup in Texas July 2–4.
Claim 2: "Cloud seeding only works for 15–30 minutes."
Counter: The precipitation effect of cloud seeding may be short-lived, but the AgI aerosols themselves can persist in the atmosphere far longer, depending on wind shear, turbulence, and atmospheric moisture. Studies have shown that silver iodide particles can travel tens of kilometers and remain airborne for days, potentially entering later convective systems.
Claim 3: "They only seeded for 20 minutes, in a small area not over the flood zone."
Counter: Without flight logs, dispersal maps, and third-party modeling, the public has no way to verify this claim. Additionally, atmospheric circulation—particularly during the formation of mesoscale convective complexes (MCCs)—can transport and recirculate aerosols across regions, especially with strong low-level jets and vertical uplift.
Claim 4: “It’s not possible that cloud seeding had any effect two days later.”
Counter: This claim ignores the role of aerosol residence time. In moist, stagnant, or convectively unstable air masses, silver iodide particles can remain suspended, interact with ice nucleation processes, or be drawn into storm updrafts long after release. The idea that seeding’s influence disappears within an hour contradicts basic aerosol physics.
Claim 5: "This is just conspiracy theory—basic science says it’s impossible."
Counter: No, basic science says it’s plausible. The claim that silver iodide cannot linger or influence storms days later is scientifically unsupportable without full atmospheric modeling, which has not been provided. The real conspiracy is pretending that such a possibility isn’t even worth investigating.
Cloud seeding isn’t inherently nefarious. But treating it as untouchable, especially when lives are lost and public trust is at stake, is both unscientific and unethical. The July 4 floods demand answers—not just for the sake of hindsight, but to inform future environmental safety and infrastructure planning. Especially now, under the AI infrastructure deregulation passed in the “BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL”, where utility-driven weather modification could become central to powering America’s digital future, the public deserves more than boilerplate denials.
We deserve facts. We deserve transparency. And we deserve science—not spin.
The Science Says: Not So Fast
This is where the real science must be heard—because the “nothing to see here” attitude from both private operators and some meteorologists is misleading and, at worst, anti-scientific.
1. Aerosol Physics 101: How Long Can AgI Stay Aloft?
Particle Size: AgI used in cloud seeding is typically less than 1 µm in diameter (Value: 1 µm = 1 micron = one millionth of a meter). At this scale, particles behave like aerosols, not sand or dust. A micrometer (µm) is a unit of length equal to one-millionth of a meter. For perspective, a typical human hair is about 70–100 µm thick. So a particle that measures just 1 µm across is almost 100 times thinner than a hair. These submicron particles can stay suspended in the atmosphere for days, easily carried by wind.
Atmospheric Lifetime: As leading atmospheric chemists Seinfeld & Pandis (2016) explain, submicron particles have extremely low settling velocities—on the order of 0.1 mm/s. In calm conditions, a 1 µm particle may take 10 days to settle 1 km. In reality, turbulent, high-altitude winds can keep such particles suspended for days, or even longer.
Experimental Evidence: Dispersion studies have tracked ground-based AgI plumes over tens of kilometers hours or days after release. Flights over Wyoming have detected residual AgI in the air long after operations ended.
A study titled “Airborne Measurements of the Impact of Ground‑based Glaciogenic Cloud Seeding...” reports on seven research flights over a mountain in Wyoming, including those flown after the ground generators were turned off, yet they still detected AgI in the air Springer Nature Link.
Another published paper, “The Dispersion of Silver Iodide Particles from Ground‑Based...”, notes that AgI was found on every flight, even when measurements were taken away from active seeding operations, indicating residual AgI persisting in the atmosphere journals.ametsoc.org.
The Dispersion of Silver Iodide Particles from Ground-Based Generators over Complex Terrain. Part II: WRF Large-Eddy Simulations versus Observations
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/53/6/jamc-d-13-0241.1.xmlTransport pathway of the Ag+ following artificial precipitation enhancement activities
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10839602/United States Department of Accountability Office report to congressional requesters https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-107328.pdf
Evaluation of the Wyoming Weather Modification Pilot Project (WWMPP) Using Two Approaches: Traditional Statistics and Ensemble Modeling
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328180082_Evaluation_of_the_Wyoming_Weather_Modification_Pilot_Project_WWMPP_Using_Two_Approaches_Traditional_Statistics_and_Ensemble_Modeling#:~:text=Abstract%20and%20Figures,range%20of%203%25%2D7%25.Airborne measurements of the impact of ground-based glaciogenic cloud seeding on orographic precipitation
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-012-2128-2The World Meteorological Association also acknowledges the fact that AgI particles remain airborne for some time, days.
https://library.wmo.int/viewer/54696?medianame=wmo_1156_en_#page=1&viewer=picture&o=bookmark&n=0&q=
Here are a few more peer reviewed studies that support numerous aspects of speculation to whether or not Cloud Seeding on July 2nd could have contributed to the July 4th storm.
Mixed-phase regime cloud thinning could help restore sea ice https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aca16d
Feedback mechanisms of shallow convective clouds in a warmer climate as demonstrated by changes in buoyancy https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aac178
Impact of cloud radiative forcing on tropical cyclone frequency and intensity through tuning the cloud ice-to-snow diameter threshold
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ad9b3c
2. Not All AgI Triggers Precipitation
A portion of AgI never nucleates rain. Some particles remain aloft, especially in dry or unstable conditions. If seeding is excessive or clouds are not primed to precipitate, “leftover” AgI can drift far from its intended target, persisting in the atmosphere.
3. Concentration and Conditions Matter
Under normal operations, AgI is diluted to trace levels. But over-seeding, operator error, or unexpected atmospheric behavior can saturate an area with residual particles, increasing their environmental persistence.
4. Real-World Application: Could Cloud Seeding Linger Until July 4?
If too much AgI was released on July 2, or if the seeded clouds failed to precipitate, it is entirely plausible that some AgI remained suspended in the region’s atmosphere for 24–48 hours. This is especially likely in a saturated, unstable air mass, where high-altitude winds and turbulence can keep aerosols circulating for days.
Supporting Reference: Seinfeld, J. H., & Pandis, S. N. (2016). Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change (3rd ed.), Wiley. “The gravitational settling velocity of a 1 µm particle in still air is approximately 0.3 cm/min. At this rate, such a particle would take several days to settle out of the atmosphere.”
The Real Atmospheric Setup from July 2–4
Between July 2 and 4, Central Texas experienced highly favorable conditions for aerosol persistence and storm formation—conditions under which residual AgI from cloud seeding could plausibly linger and potentially influence storm dynamics. Here’s how:
1. Abundant Moisture and Increased Precipitable Water
Central Texas recorded extremely high precipitable water values—estimated at 2.25–2.4 inches—placing it in the top 0.5% of historical records. In such saturated, humid conditions, aerosol settling via dry or wet deposition is significantly slowed, prolonging airborne residence times.
2. Strong Low-Level Atmospheric Uplift
The region experienced upslope flow from a low-level jet (~5,000 ft) feeding into the Hill Country, energized by the remnant moisture of Tropical Storm Barry, a mid-level trough, and daily sea-breeze circulation patterns. These factors produce persistent vertical velocity, transporting and sustaining AgI particles in the mid-upper troposphere.
3. Formation of a Mesoscale Convective Complex (MCC)
On July 4, a mesoscale convective complex developed overnight, stalling over Hill Country and producing torrential rainfall. MCCs are known for cycling air through updrafts and downdrafts, creating loops that can re-suspend aerosols for extended periods—often overnight into early morning.
4. Heightened Winds and Atmospheric Turbulence
The combination of low-level jets, upper-level trough dynamics, and sea-breeze interactions created a turbulent, sheared environment. Such shear and mixing prevent calm conditions that allow aerosol settling, enabling particles to remain airborne and even horizontally advected across regions.
Synthesizing the Model
Hypothetical AgI Plume Fate (July 2–4):
Seeding on July 2 releases AgI into a highly moist, uplift-rich atmosphere.
Minimal precipitation scavenging delays deposition; vertical uplift cycles particles aloft.
Day–night convection, particularly with MCC formation, re-entrains residual AgI into upper-level circulations.
By early July 4, as storm complexes intensify, these particles could be drawn into system cores, potentially interacting with ice nucleation processes.
What’s Missing—and Why This Matters
The crux of the problem is transparency. Neither Rainmaker Technologies nor state regulators have disclosed:
Exact quantities of silver iodide dispersed,
Dispersion methods or flight paths,
Atmospheric modeling data showing where the chemicals went.
Without this data—and without third-party verification—it is scientifically indefensible to state that cloud seeding “played no role” in the catastrophic rainfall.
The Bottom Line: Science Demands Questions, Not Denial
While there is no evidence that the July 4, 2025, Texas floods were “caused” by cloud seeding, it is not accurate to categorically rule out any influence. If cloud seeding operations were mismanaged, or if unusual atmospheric conditions prevailed, it is entirely plausible that residual silver iodide lingered in the air for days, potentially interacting with later storm systems.
To claim otherwise is not scientific caution—it’s wishful thinking. As we move forward, the public deserves transparency, accountability, and real science—not denial—especially in the face of tragedy.
Cloud Seeding and the Cloud: How Weather Modification Supports a Digital Future
Despite internet rumors, cloud seeding isn’t a conspiracy—it’s infrastructure. And increasingly, it’s infrastructure that supports Big Tech.
Introduction: Beyond the Myths
Cloud seeding—the practice of enhancing precipitation through the release of particles like silver iodide into storm systems—has long been relegated to the realm of conspiracy theories and science fiction. But in reality, it’s neither secretive nor speculative. It’s a science-backed, state-licensed program deployed in at least nine U.S. states with a wide range of beneficiaries. And while it's often associated with agriculture, today’s biggest winners may be far more digital than dusty.
Cloud seeding is not about controlling minds—it’s about managing water. And that water, in turn, supports energy generation, urban supply, and increasingly, data center development.
The National Scope: Cloud Seeding Across the U.S.
Several states have fully active or recently updated cloud seeding programs:
Texas
Operator: Texas Weather Modification Association (TWMA)
Purpose: Rain enhancement, hail suppression
Notes: The most extensive program in the country; regulated by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation.
California
Operator: Water agencies like PG&E and Santa Barbara County
Purpose: Snowpack enhancement, drought mitigation
Notes: PG&E uses seeding to bolster hydropower, particularly in the Feather River watershed.
Utah
Operator: Utah Division of Water Resources
Purpose: Snowpack enhancement for reservoirs
Notes: Operates in the Wasatch and Uinta mountain ranges.
Colorado
Operator: Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB)
Purpose: Snowpack enhancement
Notes: Funded in part by ski resorts and local municipalities.
Wyoming
Operator: Wyoming Water Development Office
Purpose: Snowpack augmentation
Notes: Home to one of the most scientifically studied programs in the U.S.
Nevada
Operator: Desert Research Institute (DRI)
Purpose: Snowpack enhancement in Sierra Nevada and Great Basin
Notes: Includes both ground and airborne operations.
North Dakota
Operator: North Dakota Atmospheric Resource Board
Purpose: Rain enhancement and hail suppression
Notes: Among the oldest cloud seeding efforts in the country.
Idaho
Operator: Idaho Power Company
Purpose: Boost snowpack for hydropower
Notes: Seeds four major watersheds—Payette, Boise, Wood, and Upper Snake—using more than 57 ground generators and aircraft.
New Mexico
Operator: County-level and tribal entities
Purpose: Drought relief
Notes: Often seasonal or experimental, sometimes coordinated with Texas operators.
Other states with intermittent or research-based efforts include Arizona, Montana, Kansas, and South Dakota.
PG&E’s Hidden Hydrological Engine
California’s PG&E, one of the largest utility companies in the United States, isn’t in the cloud seeding game to help farmers or even to fight wildfires. The motivation is clear: hydropower. PG&E’s hydroelectric dams rely on seasonal snowmelt—more snow means more water, more power, and more profit.
Key reasons PG&E invests in cloud seeding:
Hydropower Dependence
Revenue Protection
Drought Mitigation
Cost-Effective ROI
PG&E’s service territory includes:
The Bay Area (Silicon Valley)
The Sacramento Corridor
The Central Valley
Each of these areas houses significant data infrastructure, making PG&E’s snowpack strategy a quiet insurance policy for high-demand tech clients like Apple, Meta, and Amazon Web Services.
Idaho Power: A Cold Play for More Power
In Idaho, cloud seeding isn't about rainstorms—it's about snowpack. Idaho Power runs an extensive cloud seeding operation across key mountain basins: Payette, Boise, Wood, and Upper Snake. The program, which costs around $4 million annually, boosts average snowpack by 10–12%, directly feeding the hydro system that powers much of the state.
Innovations include:
Liquid propane generators that can operate in warmer storms (~30°F)
Airborne silver iodide flare releases
Partnerships with local irrigators and water boards
These enhanced water flows support everything from irrigation to recreation—but also consistent electricity for industrial and digital operations.
Tech’s Quiet Reliance on a Wetter West
Do data centers benefit from cloud seeding? Absolutely.
Data centers are among the most water- and energy-intensive infrastructures in the modern world. Cloud seeding indirectly—but materially—supports:
Cooling systems
Power generation (especially hydro)
Stable municipal water supplies
States with strong data center growth also happen to support active cloud seeding programs:
Nevada (Google, Switch)
Utah (AWS, Meta)
Wyoming (Microsoft)
Texas (Oracle, Google, Microsoft)
California (Apple, Meta, AWS)
This overlap may not be coincidental. While there are no public disclosures tying tech giants directly to cloud seeding funding, the utilities that serve them—like PG&E and Idaho Power—do invest heavily in the practice. These utilities often hold exclusive energy and water contracts with major data clients.
Texas Hill Country: Water Wars on the Horizon
In Texas, water competition is surfacing in the Guadalupe River watershed, where a new data center by CloudBurst is slated to rise between Hays and Guadalupe counties. The facility plans to run on-site natural gas and draw water from municipal or groundwater sources, sparking backlash in a region already struggling with drought and flood risk.
Though the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (GBRA) does not operate any cloud seeding programs, its control over water infrastructure and reservoir systems will impact the availability of water for both tech and human users.
Locals are beginning to ask: Should data centers get priority access to public water in a state that can’t keep its aquifers full?
The Future Is Seeded
Cloud seeding isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s not just about agriculture or hailstorms—it’s about infrastructure. As the digital economy grows, so does the demand for water security, energy reliability, and climate insurance. Cloud seeding now sits quietly at the intersection of these forces.
The real conspiracy isn’t that cloud seeding exists—it’s that its modern beneficiaries are rarely discussed. While farmers may appreciate a few extra inches of rainfall, the real winners are the servers and megawatt contracts humming in hardened data halls from Reno to San Marcos.
Cloud seeding, in short, helps keep the Cloud online.
Science, Not Silence
If cloud seeding is a legitimate tool of water management, then it must also be treated as a legitimate subject of public inquiry and scientific scrutiny. The July 4 floods in Texas—and the growing questions surrounding weather modification in the state—demand more than dismissive press releases and armchair declarations of impossibility. They demand transparent data, third-party atmospheric modeling, and regulatory oversight rooted in scientific plausibility, not political convenience.
Too often, questions about cloud seeding are waved away as “conspiracy theories”—a term that, in this context, functions less as a rebuttal and more as a silencer. This rhetoric protects not science, but powerful industrial interests that benefit from the status quo. These include utility monopolies, private weather modification contractors, and an increasingly data-hungry technology sector that depends on uninterrupted power and water. When accusations are met with denial instead of data, public trust collapses—and so does scientific accountability.
Nowhere is this more urgent than in Texas, where cloud seeding is largely unmonitored by federal agencies and governed only by minimal state-level reporting. The industry has grown under the radar, with few disclosure requirements and even fewer consequences when operations overlap with extreme weather events. The public has no access to detailed flight logs, chemical dispersal reports, or environmental impact assessments.
And yet, these same operations are carried out in an atmosphere that, according to well-established aerosol physics, can retain silver iodide particles for days, especially under stormy, humid conditions like those present during the deadly July 4 floods.
The Role of Deregulation in Amplifying the Risk
Adding fuel to this opacity is the "BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL"—a sweeping federal law signed on July 4, 2025, that among other things, deregulates artificial intelligence infrastructure for the next decade. This law effectively strips states and localities of their ability to regulate the physical buildout of AI systems, including the data centers, fiber networks, and cooling infrastructure that make up the digital cloud.
What does this have to do with weather modification?
Everything.
As tech giants expand their hyperscale facilities across drought-prone Western states, they depend on the utilities that support them—including those that run or contract out cloud seeding programs to ensure water and energy security. With AI deregulation now federal law, the construction of data infrastructure will accelerate, and with it, the quiet demand for enhanced snowpack and water supply. Cloud seeding is not just tolerated in this framework—it’s increasingly essential.
If left unchecked, this could create a closed-loop of industrialized water control, where cloud seeding supports energy for AI, and AI powers the models used to justify more cloud seeding—all with minimal oversight and no requirement to disclose potential environmental risks to the public.
Demand Action
It is time for policymakers, scientists, and the media to break the silence. We must:
Demand third-party investigations into cloud seeding’s role in the July 4 flood.
Mandate full public disclosure of weather modification flight logs, chemical usage, and atmospheric modeling.
Update state and federal oversight to reflect modern usage—not Cold War-era frameworks.
Acknowledge the ties between data infrastructure, utility-driven seeding, and long-term water consumption trends.
Cloud seeding isn’t a conspiracy. But treating it as off-limits for inquiry serves the powerful—not the public. If we don’t ask hard questions now, we may wake up in a future where weather itself is just another utility… and the people most affected have the least say in how it’s used.