Looking through Jubilee’s YouTube channel, you might stumble across their bio — “Provoke Human Connection” — but right below, you’ll see videos like “Mass Shooting Survivors vs NRA Members” or “Men Rank Themselves by Penile Size.” Jubilee certainly provokes its viewers, but I’m not sure whether they really foster human connection with their videos.
I’m sure many of us have come across Jubilee videos on Instagram, TikTok or YouTube featuring viral political discussions that have millions of views and thousands of comments. The viral clips that get a lot of circulation on short-form social media are usually the ones with the most controversial statements, stripped of context.
Personally, I have been watching Jubilee for many years because it was the way I was exposed to these controversial topics and debates when I was younger. One of their series that I followed was “Middle Ground,” which “explores whether two different groups of people, opposed in their beliefs, can come together empathetically and find middle ground.” However, just by watching the video or reading the comments, it seems like they do anything but. Instead, most of Jubilee’s content seems to just reinforce people’s already-held beliefs, sometimes even leading to what feels like a humiliation ritual. This raises the question: What exactly is the point of these videos?
For the “Middle Ground” videos, some of it may seem like a normal debate. The host will present a prompt, and people who agree with it (regardless of which side they are on) will discuss; then those who disagree will join in to argue for their beliefs. Much of the discussion will bring out the usual talking points for their respective topics and sometimes even tie in their personal anecdotes. However, there never seems to be an actual “Middle Ground” part in the videos, other than the forceful handshake or hug that people are made to give the other side when they wrap up.
Furthermore, the groups of people they choose to pit against each other don’t really make any sense. “Mass Shooting Survivors vs NRA Members,” ‘LGBTQ+ vs Christians,’ “Rich Men vs Poor Men,” “Anorexia vs Obese,” or “Black Conservatives vs White Liberals” are just some examples. It seems like they simply pick people from opposite ends of the spectrum, put them together, and see what they say to each other. Some of these groups never even had a ‘conflict’ to begin with, so how exactly does this “provoke human connection”?
As a viewer, I don’t think I’ve ever clicked on an episode to see how they can “come together empathetically and find middle ground,” but rather to see how the debate will end. The sheer polarity of the two sides only really serves as ragebait, since viewers want to watch the side they already agree with beat the side they disagree with. In fact, they are often outraged by points the other side makes, which is why Jubilee’s ‘apolitical’ stance earns them revenue and attention from viewers all across the political spectrum.
I’m not saying that all content needs to have a middle ground or should be apolitical, but rather, I am criticizing how misleading Jubilee’s content can be, and the irony of its intentions. I am also criticizing Jubilee for seeming aware of why their content is viral across social media platforms, as there is a clear tonal shift between their pre-pandemic and recent videos. In older videos, though they also fail to create middle ground, they do feature participants who seem serious about their points, as well as a more muted thumbnail and tone that respects the seriousness of the topics. Now, their recent videos appear more extreme and exaggerated, often featuring bolded text and cartoonish facial expressions that are clearly meant as clickbait. This suggests that Jubilee is aware of the controversy it creates and is intentionally fueling it for the sake of profit, as ragebaited viewers will click to watch their content. The ultimate winner of the debate is neither side, but Jubilee itself.
I think controversial discussions and debates should be held. But Jubilee’s content not only heightens the already polarized political atmosphere online but also platforms extreme voices within its pool of debate participants, many of whom are ignorant at best and problematic at worst. They have highlighted voices and opinions that contain misinformation and promote hate speech, by featuring self-proclaimed fascists, people who advocate against vaccines and misinformed flat earthers. Why exactly is Jubilee giving them such an influential platform to vocalize their points?
As Jubilee continues producing its provocative debate videos, there is nothing more truly indicative of the current polarized, overpopulated political landscape than the words of Jubilee’s founder and CEO, Jason Y. Lee: “By the next election, there should be a presidential debate on YouTube, and Jubilee is the right home for that.” Perhaps it’ll fit perfectly alongside the channel’s other thought-provoking content.
