"You Presumably Don't Instagram as a Career": Civil Discourse, an Anachronism?

boresguy’s argumentation style is professional, for sure — he keeps returning to talking points (“blank canvas,” “influencer,” “no substantive policy”), and skipping past those places where I dig in on the substance of what he’s arguing. That may be smart: Do we collectively have the attention span these days to follow this sort of dialogue all the way thru? If you care about story, if you care about color and character, I’d like to think that I won this argument; if you’re half-paying attention and want a quick answer, and to stop thinking about it, boresguy’s approach might make that easier. (Ironically, this is what he accuses Jack Schlossberg of doing, and being, as an “Instagrammer.”)

Following boresguy’s initial politely trolling post, and my somewhat less polite troll-y reply, the exchange segues into an extended back-and-forth about the Elliott Housing Project in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood, where Schlossberg has sided with a tenant group that seeks to stop a redevelopment plan. That tenant group, in the minority numbers-wise within Elliott’s total population, is comprised of mainly elderly residents who do not want to go through the disruption of moving out of their units, and living on a construction site for what could be the remainder of their years; instead, they seek the federal funding and repairs which, in a better faith country (the sort in which a public official like Zohran Mamdani makes us want to believe), would be forthcoming in the blink of an eye.

From there, it’s on to the crux of the debate: the substance of Bores v. Schlossberg. You can judge the winner for yourself. One thing, though, I’d say is certain: No matter who prevails in the NY-12 race, the permutations of that outcome will reverberate in the ’28 presidential, as far as what tactics are deemed effective. If the dark money astroturfing against “No PAC Jack” works, well, mark your calendar because astroturfing’s going to start a-raining down on social media, first during the Dem primaries, and then, relentlessly, during the run-up to the general election.

And if it doesn’t… yeah, we’ll still probably get some of it, but with voters in NY-12 having demonstrated the capacity to recognize and reject the practice and the dark money behind it, there’s hope, perhaps one day—one day soon—for a less toxic public sphere.

If you haven’t spent enough time on social media to notice, good for you, but astroturfing is endemic to MAGA world: grifters gonna grift, and what’s better than getting paid to deliver talking points? “Progressive” Alex Bores has made a compact with that insidious practice. (Micah Lasher too? His dark money must be going somewhere, as well?)

Why do I get the feeling there will be a spate of reporting on this only once the race is over.

- J.T. Price

jtpjustlikehome: bot king Alex Bores (“tRue pROgReSsivE”). See Politico article today by Jason Beeferman

boresguy: PACs doing shady web marketing isn’t cool — that doesn’t change reality of Bores being the better candidate. Jack is a great influencer and passionate, he should have a political/cultural talk show maybe, be the Joe Rogan for the left for all I care. he’s not right for Congress. His position on the Elliott housing project is a good reflection of that.

jtpjustlikehome: Disagree, of course, as does Nina Schwalbe re Elliott Housing. New buildings, yes, but as the residents (many of whom don’t want to move at their advanced age) move on, the private partnership aspect would risk those apartments going to market rate (which is what has happened elsewhere in the five boroughs). As w other matters Bores, I’d say his solution looks good up front… until you start digging into the details.
& astroturfing is bad, period, kind of poisonous to the progressive spirit (which is why it’s so prevalent in MAGA world). If we can’t trust Bores now to align his campaign w good values, why would we think he will in Congress where the temptations will be greater?
re fitness for office, there just isn’t much grist to the notion that Schlossberg wouldn’t serve well. It’s conjecture from competing parties (and astroturfed accounts!) looking to pigeonhole him that way.

boresguy: Jack’s been posting unserious for years. Mamdani being for the housing project redevelopment/renovation should speak to it being worthwhile: those tenants would have to move temporarily before returning to a new development that isn’t at risk of being converted to some other entity. And a PAC doing social media agency work is not Bores’s fault tbh…

jtpjustlikehome: Mamdani is under pressure to produce as much new housing as possible as quickly as possible. Public-private partnership always risks private takeover when, in ten years, there’s a ton of money to be made. Nina Schwalbe, a progressive’s progressive, likewise supports Jack’s stand on that issue — so it isn’t just him.
re posts: provocative, sure, but you haven’t seen that since he’s been on the campaign trail. which suggests self-control you aren’t giving him credit for. Buttoned-down & nondescript is kind of old hat in this day and age, is it not?

boresguy: I literally saw it last week w his weird post about dua lipa and Callum turner… and Mamdani recognizing public-private partnership is essential to actually getting things built is reflective of the need to actually get things built. and where in the Elliott redevelopment plan is there anything that says in 10 years the public housing elements can be redeveloped into private market rate housing?

jtpjustlikehome: ah tongue in cheek and speaking to popular taste among young ppl in his district… No harm in that imho & could draw pop culture-obsessed types into politics who wouldn’t otherwise engage — a talent of his that Bores and Lasher lack.
Ten years is an arbitrary number — just saying what’s true which is that in time the private element tends to wrest control from the public when given the leverage to do so. JS stance on new housing is, I think, that we can dream bigger — the demand is pent-up & enormous not just in NYC but across the country and if we are able to turn the corner on Trump, the potential could exist for a housing bill that would have support from both parties

boresguy: would just caution against the belief that there is some federal money coming for housing projects — that’s the type of stuff that republicans will never pass. meanwhile the need for housing is urgent, private-public partnerships prove the best way to actually get things done, and there’s zero reason to believe that the public housing in this development can get rezoned in any way… nothing by law or contract would allow for that. waiting around for some federal housing bill at best would necessitate waiting until 2028 and at worst could never happen. meanwhile this project would fund NYCHA-backed affordable housing for years through the revenue from the market-rate stuff AND gets tons of public housing in desperate need of upkeep reconstructed into nice, new units.

jtpjustlikehome: Def Newt Gingrich/McConnell Rep party would never pass, that’s true. The crisis has become more acute nationally tho (in part for that exact reason) & remains to be seen how dust will settle post-Trump. Def Rep party is giving at least lip service at this point to housing cost. So….. It would be a change but also the kind of thing that might have passed in an earlier era where Republicans weren’t deadset on obstruction by any means — or in the future, sans filibuster.

boresguy: so you’re wanting to punt on one of the most important needs for the nation’s biggest cities for a minimum 3 years, in hopes of nationwide housing infrastructure bill passing Congress… all to avoid a public-private partnership that could happen quickly?

jtpjustlikehome: I’m defending the choice, which I see as most def defensible contra the air of seething disdain that some pundits (on, say, Twitter) have taken toward Schlossberg for backing the tenant group who want to stop the project. Look even today with headlines about costs to taxpayers of DT’s ballroom: that right there is the kind of issue to leverage into Repub support for new housing nationally amid a cost of living crisis. Receiving money that way and funding public housing is objectively the correct thing to do in the abstract and staves off any possibility of “rug-pulling” years ahead when the private partners want more profit. In any case, the larger point I’m arguing is that Schlossberg is principled and thoughtful… I just interviewed him, which you can read here.

boresguy: just feels short-sighted and about being “a fighter” more than actually accomplishing what’s needed. It’s not sexy to say I want this redevelopment to happen, it’s sexy to say i’m standing with tenants against them being kicked out of their homes. But in the weeds, the right choice is clear and it’s not stopping this project that will, after it’s done, see these tenants have their housing, but new and better. The housing needs to be redone, and [Schlossberg] is sticking up for blocking that. We don’t need fighters as much as we need leaders who do what’s right. I think jack cares about doing the right thing, I just don’t think he actually knows what that is. bores and fwiw even Lasher are real, experienced folks. Jerry Nadler was a good legislator, and Lasher’s experience with him is meaningful. Jack has no relevant experience. We need him in the media sphere, not in Congress. But respect your doing the work and engaging.

jtpjustlikehome: Fair enough & obv (per the interview) I disagree. Understand where you’re coming from tho. Expediency is real, the lay of the political landscape which led to the housing reconstruction plan is real… but so, too, can be big shifts in the political landscape. I believe big-voiced individuals like JS are how to effect that… Lasher and Bores have two years and four years, respectively, in state assembly over JS… It isn’t like comparing him to Jerry Nadler, or someone with a truly seasoned track record. Lasher’s history suggests a centrist who will disappear into the woodwork in Congress, and I view Bores as disingenuous… Yes to AI regulation, for certain, but the hero’s story he has crafted abt being the only one capable of doing it is dubious. (I’d prefer someone who, even if he loses, will continue to champion what he believes.) And, again, you argue Bores has no control over the ethics of what his superPACs do… True perhaps in some strict sense…. But he has all the wherewithal in the world to speak out against the tactics being used in his name and he has not. Just pretends it isn’t happening, and astroturfing is inherently anti-progressive: poisonous to civic-minded spirit (you may have seen there are now trolls in JS’s comments asking Where’s my money, Alex Bores?)

boresguy: I’m not sure where the idea Bores’ AI regulation stuff is disingenuous comes from, when he comes from the industry and clearly speaks the language fluently. meanwhile fwiw jack feels like a blank canvas entirely. the idea one is righteous validly and the other isn’t… idk. Lasher working as Nadler’s aide and Nadler calling him his protege… feels pretty relevant here. And the idea that social media tactics, having random comments pop up from accounts being paid for, is something the candidate needs to bring attention to doesn’t track. It’s not like the PAC is pumping out lies or nasty ads or something that is a meaningful issue. Paid for commenters doesn’t rise to the level of candidate disavowal. Has he even been asked about it? Jack is not a mainstream national figure and isn’t going to become one — the country doesn’t want a Kennedy scion at that level. Jack should do some real political organizing, do some work for a cause, accomplish something, etc. Right now, he’s just a young guy trying to be in the ring. And there are better ways for him to do that.

jtpjustlikehome: Obv again we disagree… JS outraised both Bores & Lasher campaigns on direct donations w average $40 contribution from all 50 states. Majority of Bores contributions are from Silicon Valley. I don’t see Bores as, like, purely evil or something, but agree w Jack that the legislator ought to be disinterested (& not bought w dark money) and primed to seek consultation from experts — an expert like, well, Alex Bores. Bores’ framing of the issue obscures that possibility, which is traditionally how ALL regulations have been passed in the history of this country. We did not have to elect a former employee of Ma Bell to break up the monopoly, right?
Finally, and I can’t expect you’ll be inclined to dig in on this, but Politico has only reported the surface of the astroturfing. There has been some much nastier stuff afoot, including seemingly the hiring of professional troll CrackheadBarney…. All signs point to Bores ppl as the culprits, and to the vicious, AI account-boosted swarms that ensued. Really nasty stuff indistinguishable from MAGA tactics. kaitlyndoespolitics has been digging in there.
I’ve enjoyed this convo and would be willing to run it exactly as is to my Substack if you’re willing. Not to call it, of course, assuming you have more to say.

boresguy: jack has a following bc he’s young and charming and been an influencer for years, so yes he could raise money from all 50 states ≠ the country wants him to lead the nation. AI is different than breaking up a monopoly, understanding it is core to it. [Bores]’s backed by one AI group that believes in his vision while another believes he’s the enemy of progress and regulation is evil. Having a vision for how to use the tool that is unlike anything we’ve seen before is a pro — Jack not having a meaningful position on the topic (or really on any significant complex issue) is an issue.

jtpjustlikehome: You’re confused. He is running to represent NY-12 & those donors from across the country supported his campaign to do so, therefore it seems like maybe the deficit in understanding might be yours? (& certainly not for you to decide what they did or did not intend.) You’re repeating essentially a talking point — that Jack is “a blank canvas” or empty-headed or whatever — and earlier in this same thread I shared my interview w him where his criticisms of Bores and Lasher read as anything but empty. I suppose if I was performing my support for a candidate I might be tempted by that tactic too — Move on, Get back to repeating our baseline messaging — but that doesn’t make it in any way true & I think that ppl can see thru that. As they can see thru, as well, the claim that probably dates to time immemorial of ‘Listen, Child, All of This is just Too Complicated for You to Understand’ which is why we have to put someone compromised by involvement with That Complicated Thing into a position of power so as to govern us. We did not elect factory owners to government in order to regulate factories (which were plenty complicated for the time!), or well, I could go on, up to and including Wall Street. That argument you’re making, which is Bores’ argument — it is Ridiculous, as the end logic it points to is that essentially the AI people need to take over our government in order to regulate AI, or else….. regulation can never happen! (that’s according to Alex Bores). That argument is trotted out over & over by those in positions of power and wealth, and brother I do my best to stay well clear of it. Government is comprised of elected representatives from the ppl, not the tech elites. Alex can go to work for an AI regulation think-tank after he loses, which I assure you, will be glad to have him to write legislation that Jack as a member of Congress can vote to pass. That seems to me the best answer for everyone involved, don’t you think? 😀
Good post re our discussion on Jack’s page right now “Meet the Voters of NY-12” about astroturfing.

boresguy: really don’t believe that he’s making an argument that AI people need to take over government — but it is a good idea for someone who understands it to be in a position to regulate it. He’s not a tech elite, he’s a guy who has worked on tech-govt programs and been in legislature afterwards. That some tech elite support him is not a stain, especially as other vilify him and see him as a massive threat. And I was making the pt that Jack is not some sensational figure able to generate nationwide change like a lofty federal housing bill, and then you said he has nationwide support, and I was just contextualizing that. But yes Jack is very clearly a charismatic blank slate, as his actual campaign and website reflect…. that’s not a talking point that comes from following him and seeing his content… He is running as a straight talking progressive and has no substantive policy proposals? And the point is no we don’t need a thoughtful, pragmatic operator at a think tank, behind a door no one sees. We need thoughtful folks like that as legislators. This all comes down to Jack’s answer to David Remnick, tbh, to why do you deserve to be in Congress. “Bc I have a JD/MBA from a top school and was a Biden volunteer” was legit his answer. Come on now

jtpjustlikehome: Bores is very clearly “in bed” with the tech elites, has made a lot of money there doing what appears to be (as is so often the case) not so savory stuff. I understand that he has a conscience, and that he is pushing to be on the right side of history, but there’s something disingenuous abt how he presents himself, starting w the argument (a false one) that only someone who worked adjacent to AI can write/pass legislation to regulate AI. Alex is welcome to emerge from behind the think tank door every few months after he loses & wave to the cameras — I personally extend that invitation to him. Would be a shame if he gets cloistered in darkness.
re Jack’s proposals, you’re hitting a talking point but they are there for people to see — whether or not NY-12 ppl think it’s a good idea to be able to deduct rent from taxes, or have “ricochet” gun laws whereby less regulated states get penalized for gun transfers across state lines, or bridging performers’ insurance btw gigs or… I could go on. The policies are there, and fine as proposals, maybe even catchy. But we both know progressive legislation, short of a miracle or unexpected turn, is going to have a hard time passing these next two years — which is exactly why voice and platform matter. Jack has that, per his donations, more than any of the other candidates, and while he’s also the youngest, he has the most potential to grow. Remnick’s patronizing tack notwithstanding, you’re abridging Jack’s response to suit yr talking point. He had more to say, but it’s also a question that contains the questioner’s judgment in the premise. JFK, by the way, was elected to Congress at age 29 w only very limited work experience… Not a perfect man, by any means, but def one of the most consequential presidents of the 20th century. Jack is only running to rep NY-12, and I’d imagine that being Caroline Kennedy’s son is more of a political education in and of itself than you or I could dream of. People would pay for that education if they could.

boresguy: I haven’t heard this argument that only someone adjacent to AI can write regulation. I also don’t know what “lot of money” he made from not savory stuff… are you referencing he worked at Palantir? Bc he’s talked about the work he did there and when he quit… I trust him on AI not bc he’s close to AI tech ppl but because he has a thorough proposal on regulation and clearly has learned a lot. He quit Palantir in 2019… he clearly isn’t working in the AI of today and hasn’t made millions from it… not sure where that came from. And again not sure why you want to put a legislator w smart proposals behind a think tank as opposed to in a position to actually legislate. People can go to Jack’s website and make the determination for themselves — as I did. His new gun law proposal from 3 weeks ago is something and not a bad idea, but the idea he has thorough and meaningful policy proposals is… a reach. Glad he’s charmed you but believing this influencer is right from Congress… couldn’t be me.

jtpjustlikehome: Bores is a millionaire — and he didn’t make that as a legislator in Albany, I hope. Presumably it dates to his time at Palantir, which as you note he quit in 2019. What is it about the year 2019 that’s concerning? He was point person for Palantir to the 1st Trump admin and says he quit out of ethical concerns. Maybe that’s even true (there’s another story that Bores says is false that he left following a workplace sexual harassment scandal). But even if it’s true — why 2019!? Why not six months after he moved into that role in 2017? He tells us that Palantir’s work w the Trump admin for 2 years was somehow ethically fine. Until it wasn’t. This is keeping in mind that Peter Thiel — Peter Thiel of I Own Palantir! — was a major backer of Trump the first time & in fact spoke at the Donald’s nominating convention in 2016. Alex Bores saw that & thought, Cool I want to work for him! And yet Palantir’s work w Trump admin was ethically all cool for two years? Do you really believe that? I don’t! But more gullible minds will buy what they’re gonna buy. I can’t stop ’em all. Combine that w a condescending ‘You really wouldn’t understand what it is I do, you have to let the company guys represent you in office’ argument and… Yeah, not buying it. (The reductio ad absurdum of his argument is that, yes, all government office will need to be held by former Palantir/ChatGPT ppl b/c nobody else can possibly understand the regulatory legislation….. And a single legislator can’t pass laws by himself. Ridiculous!)
Then, in a way, w his slick 11 mil dollar dark money campaign packaging it is Alex Bores who is the polished influencer… Because if you really break down the implications of his arguments it leads to what I’m spelling out here.
In the end tho, let’s keep it simple: How did we reach this disastrous point in our country’s history? Democrats failed — Dems like Jerry Nadler failed — to stem the tide of a destructive extremist movement enabled by dark money and gerrymandering…. and in this race Jack Schlossberg, in one of the wealthiest districts in the country (it would have been so EASY for him to do otherwise) is the only one running superPAC free & practicing what he “preaches.” (What he says in selfie-style videos, which again Bores is using too.) Bores ppl are using dark money, astroturfing tactics. Miss me w that. Miss me all century w that. Kudos to Jack Schlossberg for having the moral courage that Alex Bores and Micah Lasher lack. Thank you, folks. No more questions. Vote Jack.

re gun control plan: he introduced that at the beginning of the campaign along w several other plans. You are essentially repeating a meme put out there by his opponents — “No plans, empty head” — and brother it just ain’t true.

boresguy: I watched his video announcing his gun plan a few weeks ago, it was touted as new. and it’s not a meme, you can go to his website and see it’s thin, I’m not making that up. meanwhile Palantir in 2014 when bores started there was during Obama era and was not the toxic entity it is now. He’s spoken a length about the work he did. Imagine a time of optimism about tech and government — that’s when Bores started at Palantir. Reframing it as a choice to work for some big bad firm is wrong, full stop. Bores financial disclosure says he has 2m to 3m of wealth - is that disqualifying? Oy vey. Bores is a real person who has worked real jobs and done real government work in private sector and as a legislator. Jack is an Instagrammer. Be well.

jtpjustlikehome: You are an Instagrammer. I am an Instagrammer. Bores is an Instagrammer (plaudits for his influencer walking-and-talking vids, a trope of the influencer trade). We are all, if we aspire to be anyone these days, Instagrammers — or name the social network of yr choice. Moving to VT & disappearing from the grid has crossed my mind too, but until that day, if what you want depends on ppl, we seemingly have to go thru these networks. So that label is specious — you might as well be discussing anyone. Jack is in fact a real person too, believe it or not… and realer than Bores in Bores’, yes, disingenuousness. I’m glad Alex Bores wants AI regulated & hope he keeps working at it.
re website, I’m a canvasser & have never looked there. But can still rattle off Jack’s policy proposals. I imagine, given his campaign budget, that the focus is on driving attention to his social media accounts.
Thanks & be well

boresguy: you presumably don’t instagram as a career. Nor do I, and nor does Alex Bores. Jack… I can’t say the same. And that was the pt. I’m thrilled that Jack is a strong social media voice and he can and should be useful that way. I just want someone more serious and less chaotic and less [waves arms in the air at Jack’s whole posting like a madman schtick] in Congress.