mEhdi Hasan was acutely aware of his viral status. The broadcaster and author watched the views surge on YouTube, with his phone buzzing incessantly. However, it truly hit him when, at an event in Washington, someone approached him in Urdu, saying, “I saw you in 20 insanity.”

The individual referenced Hasan’s appearance in the British-American commentator segment. It’s surrounded the gladiators’ web series “1-Many Debate” hosted by Jubilee Media on YouTube. In the episode “1 Progressive vs 20 Far Right Conservatives,” Hasan was questioned about his “ethnic background” by a man whose Guardian was not masking as the organizer of two violent far-right protests. Laughter erupted in the debate when another participant concurred that he was a fascist.

“I saw the vast audience engaged with the youth. I thought it was a good platform,” says Hasan, who launched his own alternative news outlet, Zeteo, last year. “But it was really intense, something I hadn’t anticipated. It was extraordinary, for both positive and negative reasons.”

Hasan’s nearly two-hour discussion, which has been edited and repackaged for continuous redistribution, propelled Jubilee Media into the forefront of mainstream awareness, igniting dialogues about the political and social ramifications of new media formats, alongside various existential uncertainties.

The quickly expanding entertainment company, launched in 2017, captured the attention of youth by transforming Trump’s contentious debates into highly engaging content. Besides debates, it has also developed games and dating shows, yet is facing challenges. Its standout format pits one expert against another on a single chair to debate pressing political issues.

Few raised concerns about traditional broadcasters’ encroachment, with titles like “Flat Earth and Scientists: Can You Trust Science?” (31 million views) and “Can 25 Liberal College Students Betray One Conservative? (feat. Charlie Kirk)” (30 million views). The 2024 Video with Ben Shapiro, featuring a trans man confronting right-wing critics in Four minutes of outrage, was the fifth most viewed election-related content on YouTube.

Founder and CEO Jason Yi Lee established Jubilee in 2010 as a nonprofit after his video Basking for Charity went viral. He mentioned to Variety that the organization “aims to illustrate what discourse appears like and should look like.” He envisioned it as potentially “Disney for empathy.” But how does the combative nature of those performances align with the goal of “encouraging understanding and building human connections”?

Spencer Colnharbor, who comments on Atlantic popular culture, perceives idealism as genuine but fueled by ambition. “In Jubilee’s context, empathy defends voyeurism and a curiosity about others,” Colnharbor reflects. “Lee didn’t aspire to be the new UN. He aims to be Disney, a prominently recognized for-profit entertainment entity known for its capacity to commercialize anything and spawn franchises.”

Julia Alexander, a media correspondent for Puck News, noted Jubilee’s advantage from the rise of free speech absolutism and the internet’s shift toward social and video platforms. Yet, she asserts that while it may have initially aimed to alter negativity in discussions, the platform has succumbed to “the hateful vitriol that defines many social media.” She claims they have little hope against “the trivial yet understood currency of the Internet.” Essentially, contentious and alarming content generates more interaction than constructive dialogue.

“I hope they choose to concentrate on generating positive internet content. We surely need it,” she remarks. “Yet, I worry as they are compelled to scale continuously and surpass previous performances, leading to a tendency to produce even more extreme content.”

Hasan, also a contributor to the Guardian, recognizes the allure of the more extreme videos produced by Jubilee. He authored “Win Every Argument,” a book on the art of debate, arguing that traditional media has vacated the battlefield, allowing platforms like YouTube to fill that void.

“Mainstream media performed poorly in facilitating discussion and debate. They gave a voice to those with unorthodox perspectives,” he comments. “But I believe there is a balance between extremes. There are no standards when it comes to censorship versus narrowing opinions. There are no guardrails; as long as you’re clicking, you can post whatever you want on YouTube.”

He acknowledges some criticisms he has received for his engagements, even agreeing with aspects of them. Author and disability rights advocate Imani Barbarin pointed out that Hasan’s takedown clips of far-right militants were shared by progressives celebrating his “victories,” while equally substantial numbers were shared as proof of his failures. “We live in a memetic culture of politics,” Barbarin stated in a post on x. “These moments are literally extracted from space and time. […] The surrounding context of that moment becomes irrelevant.”

Hasan expressed that if he has any regrets, it would be not knowing more about the individuals he faced and failing to recognize the presence of extremists among them. As for overall regret regarding his participation, he contemplates.

“I stand by what I said. I believe I performed adequately in the debate,” he reflects. “The broader question remains: is the format itself problematic? Are these arguments worth making? And I’m uncertain of the answer. Ask me again in five years.”