The Privatized Murder of Public Discourse
How shows like Jubilee’s Surrounded and bad-faith social media guises stoke tribalism and falsely mirror “both sides.”
We’ve all heard the hyperbolic claim that we’re “living in the most divided moment in our nation’s history.” While recent years have certainly come close, history tells us otherwise—if, of course, schools are teaching it correctly.
Still, it’s easy to see why people believe it when they tune in to debates on outlets like Fox News on the Right or MeidasTouch on the Left. The goal isn’t discussion—it’s humiliation. Every side is preparing to clip a flashy, two-minute moment to post on Twitter, BlueSky, Truth Social, or wherever they hope to go viral.
No one’s actually engaging the person across from them. They’re talking past each other—through the camera—to an audience already on their side. It’s about pushing a narrative, not understanding a viewpoint.
There was a time when debates, even between political enemies, could deepen understanding. That time feels long gone.
Today, our “public square” is a battlefield of 280-character dunks and bad-faith provocateurs. Thoughtful debate rarely stands a chance.
And I get it. I fall into this trap too. In political discussions, it is a great—if momentary—feeling to land a good jab on someone who you’re verbally sparring with, especially if you find their opposing views reprehensible. However, the more we find ourselves giving into our worst instincts, the further apart we will find ourselves and the harder it will be to come to a compromise in order to get anything done in politics.
Humiliation Over Humanity
The bite-sized nature of modern media has created a culture where everyone is a content creator and every issue is sensationalized. Members of Congress give floor speeches to empty chambers—not to legislate, but to clip the footage for Instagram and their next fundraising email.
Politics has become a WWE match—flash over substance. Everyone is chasing their own “Warren suplexes Bloomberg” moment from 2020.
People are not looking to understand or humanize their opponents. They are looking to undermine and humiliate their opponents. You see this in how people duke it out in the comments or replies on social media filled with ad hominem attacks and cherry picked facts.
This shift didn’t happen in a vacuum. Donald Trump turned debates into spectacles of interruption and insult—threatening Hillary Clinton with jail, mocking Joe Biden as feeble, and labeling Kamala Harris the “worst Vice President we’ve ever had.” Debate rules had to be changed just to preserve basic decorum—and even then, Trump bulldozed right through them.
Online, Trump’s unhinged persona and diatribes riddled with personal insults while legislating by Tweet ushered in a new era of political discourse, where people could make unilateral decisions while also one upping their opponents.
But here’s the problem: it worked. Voters thought this made him look “strong” and “real.” So now, rising politicians—especially younger ones—model themselves after that approach. They trade substance for soundbites and “ratio” wins. As long as they rack up likes, who cares if they’re accurate, fair, or honest?
We’ve gone from public debate to content warfare. And it’s killing discourse.
What Hath the Edge Lords Wrought
Now this would be somewhat manageable—if people were acting in good faith. But more and more, they’re not.
Some are just trolls chasing attention. Others are pushing dangerous ideologies. Either way, there’s no point debating someone who only wants to provoke, frustrate, or play the victim.
Look at our own Vice President, JD Vance, who joined BlueSky not to engage but to troll trans kids who had just lost access to health care due to a conservative Supreme Court ruling.
Far-right grifters like Tucker Carlson, Matt Walsh, and Nick Fuentes built entire brands on smug cruelty. Now they’re joined by figures like Riley Gaines, whose entire media identity is “how the woke left ruined my life.” In practice, this mostly means bullying trans people who are just trying to live.
Why do they do it? Because it gets attention.
Algorithms reward anger. Tulane researchers found that people are more likely to engage with content that confronts their views than content that aligns with them. The more outrageous the post, the more views—and the more money platforms like Meta, Google, and X rake in.
And that’s why they all do it. None of it is in good faith. None of it adds positively to discourse. It’s just being controversial to get attention and gain fame and notoriety.
The content isn’t designed to enlighten. It’s designed to enrage.
Not so Jubilant Jubilee
Now I want to talk about what brought me to this topic: Jubilee’s Surrounded. You know the videos. There’s one well-known talking head from either the Right or the Left placed in the center of a gauntlet of ideological opponents — usually 20 or more — ready to rain down takes and insults like a bukkake of bad faith and clout-chasing.
Surrounded is controversy porn. It’s not a debate. It’s not meant to facilitate mutual understanding or challenge ideas in good faith. It’s designed to manufacture 10-second viral clips that validate viewers’ existing rage, push them deeper into their political silos, and rack up ad revenue in the process.
Matt Bernstein did an excellent post on the issues with Jubilee’s shows but I want to expound on that bit more because it’s worth reinforcing.
Jubilee was founded by Jason Y. Lee and investor Mike Su to build a “Disney for Empathy” with a singular goal “to create a movement for human good.” But much like the aforementioned media empire, their goal was both fantastical and secretly corporate.
Because what drives a media group more than their mission statement? Views and engagement so you can monetize your content with ads.
What better way to drive views and engagement? Controversy and Outrage.
Their most viral content? Extremists. Fringe voices. Bad-faith provocateurs. Whether it’s the speaker or the audience, the formula is the same: line up outrage, let it explode, monetize the fallout.
And that is why Jubilee says “they’re not afraid to go there.” And “there” increasingly means finding the people with the worst intentions on the farthest fringes of the political spectrum.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s those cast or those chosen to take on the hoards of the opposition.
When you look at the 1 in these 1 vs. 20 matchups, those chosen are increasingly people who are dug in on either the Right—Charlie Kirk and Jordan Peterson—or on the Left—Sam Seder and Mehdi Hasan. Those cast as the crowd also are there to elicit the most shock and awe and their arguments are all in bad faith or faulty logic.
And you can see this in the content that is most memorable from these shows which should have given Mehdi Hassan enough warning that these participants wouldn’t be the most understanding or tolerant.
Jordan Peterson vs Parkergetajob:
Peterson is a deeply controversial figure, and while I find his views reprehensible, his frustration with being cornered into a Nazi Germany hypothetical isn’t entirely misplaced. This tactic — dropping a Nazi scenario as a rhetorical trap — is emblematic of how these debates are structured to manufacture a “gotcha” moment rather than reveal real insight.
John Mulaney: Like I was talking to a friend recently, and I told him I didn't think I believed in the death penalty, and my friend said to me, "Oh, so you're telling me, that if you saw Hitler… walking down the street… you wouldn't kill him?” That wasn't what I was telling you, but alright, let's talk about this entirely new topic.
It’s a textbook false dilemma: “If you wouldn’t lie to protect someone from being sent to a death camp, your definition of belief is false.” That’s not honest discourse — that’s a game of rhetorical entrapment. Jubilee knows this format isn’t designed for nuance. They want escalation. They want the dogpile.
Yes Charlie Kirk is a piece of s**t. Yes he is a creepy dude. Charlie Kirk is a bad actor, full stop. But when the most viral clip from his appearance is someone mocking his smile — not challenging his ideas, but just insulting him — it exposes the shallowness of what’s being passed off as “debate.” If all we’ve got is snark and insults, we’re not building a stronger case — we’re sinking to their level.
Just like how I talked about Trump insulting his opponents, there are tons of people who think these ad hominem attacks are strong arguments in proving their points but it’s a weak and—honestly—immature look at public discourse and discussion.
By the way, this clip is not even in
This is ad hominem warfare, and Jubilee profits from it.
Sam Seder vs. Xenophobic Christian Nationalism
This one is egregious. The optics alone are terrible: a Jewish progressive placed across from a white, self-described Christian nationalist. The debate quickly devolves into “why can’t immigrants just assimilate to our culture that’s rooted in European identity?” — a xenophobic dog whistle couched in faux civility. And the woman making these arguments, Sarah Stock, is herself a Canadian immigrant with a long history of saying vile things on Jubilee.
Because Stock is not a first timer. She also was featured on 1 LGBTQ+ Activist vs 25 conservatives where she said “most men who have sex with other men—one or more times a week—have problems where they are not able to control their bowel movements.”
When these clips arise and people go back to watch these shows, the monetization of the videos are just making money off these extreme, far right activists
Finally, you’ve got Mehdi Hasan — a respected Muslim journalist — placed in a panel with people who, at best, flirt with fascism and, at worst, openly identify with it.
Okay just sidebar: how many people do you know personally that call themselves a fascist willingly? My guess is zero.
The premise alone is outrageous, but Jubilee frames it as a balanced debate. This isn’t platforming for the sake of understanding — it’s platforming to provoke and profit.
The Pattern Is the Point
This is Jubilee’s model. Bring in a high-profile guest, surround them with extremes, sit back, and let chaos drive the clicks. The result isn’t a deeper understanding of the other side — it’s a monetized spectacle of division. And because outrage is profitable, they’ll keep doing it. The more unhinged the guest, the better the engagement. The more viral the takedown, the more ads get sold. Empathy has been replaced by spectacle, and they’re laughing all the way to the bank.
So What Can We Do?
It feels like we can’t put the genie back in the bottle. But we’re not powerless. Here’s how we push back:
✂️ Demonetize outrage-based content.
Stop feeding clicks to shows like Surrounded. They profit off division. The more we engage, the worse public discourse becomes.
📵 Log off. Seek long-form content.
Twitter/X rewards snark and outrage. But real ideas need more than 280 characters. Prioritize platforms and content that allow for depth and nuance—even when it’s slower.
🛑 Don’t let the worst dominate the conversation.
Yes, Elon Musk has wrecked Twitter. But retreating into ideological silos like BlueSky or TruthSocial just hands public space over to extremists. Stay visible. Push back.
🤝 Find common ground—when possible.
Not everyone on the other side is unreachable. I’ll admit I have been lucky to be exposed to opportunities to learn this. As a graduate of the Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership at the University of Virginia, I was enrolled in a course that was created for the sole purpose of better bipartisan understanding and I am better for it. I worked alongside Republicans and Independents to tackle large scale problems and we even had agreements on ways to combat the housing crisis in Virginia.
We’re Not That Far Gone
Yes, this moment feels divided. But it doesn’t have to stay that way.
We can resist performative rage. We can demand better from our media. We can talk, listen, and—sometimes—find agreement.
Or we can keep spiraling, feeding the machine that profits from our division.
The choice, as always, is ours.
TL;DR:
Public discourse is being destroyed by bad-faith media, social media algorithms, and outrage-driven platforms like Jubilee’s Surrounded, which sensationalize conflict instead of fostering real dialogue. What once passed for debate has become viral performance, rewarding humiliation over understanding. Influencers and extremists profit off of division, while thoughtful discussion is sidelined. We must push back by demonetizing outrage content, stepping away from performative platforms, staying engaged in shared spaces, and making room for genuine conversation—even across political lines. Our country depends on it.
By the Ballot is an opinion series published on Substack. All views expressed are solely those of the author and should not be interpreted as reporting or objective journalism or attributed to any other individual or organization. I am not a journalist or reporter, nor do I claim to be one. This publication represents personal commentary, analysis, and opinion only.