New Liberal Media Startup “Discussion” Launches
A new liberal media initiative called “Discussion” debuted on Monday, positioning itself as a contemporary voice for liberalism with backing from tech and philanthropic donors.
The outlet, founded by former Atlantic writer Jerusalem Demsas, aims to present a positive, data-focused argument for liberal values. It also plans to publish votes and develop a network of well-known contributors. As they put it, “Please join us.”
Demsas noted that the project secured approximately $4 million in funding, boasting a $20 million valuation. This support came from various entities including Arnold Ventures and Open Philanthropy. After leaving the Atlantic, Demsas took on the roles of editor-in-chief and CEO at Discussion.
“To transition from this liberal and populist period toward a brighter future—one characterized by equal rights, prosperity, and commitment to human progress—it’s essential for our government, culture, politics, and people to align with free values,” she mentioned.
Demsas emphasizes that this effort is about proposing solutions instead of mere criticism. “We’re not just here to explain things; we’re committed to persuading you and advocating for actionable solutions instead of just diagnosing issues,” she stated in a launch video.
The team includes Kelsey Piper, a former Vox writer, and Jordan Weissmann, previously with Semafor. Election analyst Lakshya Jain is also on board, overseeing internal voting processes, as noted in the launch article.
One of the initial topics of discussion targets a popular issue in Silicon Valley: Universal Basic Income (UBI). Piper highlighted that while research is still ongoing, the current findings are not ambiguous. In her review of recent trials, she pointed out that recipients tend to work “a little less,” but the payments do not appear to yield significant advantages in health, stress levels, children’s outcomes, or employment sustainability.
Piper’s summary aligns with what is considered the largest U.S. experiment in this area. Supported by top-tier tech donors and published through the National Bureau of Economic Research, a study involved 1,000 low-income adults receiving $1,000 monthly, while 2,000 others received $50. The results indicated a 3.9 percentage point reduction in workforce participation among recipients, alongside reduced work hours, but also highlighted that these impacts seemed minimal.
One user on X pointed to the discussion around Piper’s essay, suggesting that research shows UBI fundamentally doesn’t work, despite scientists continuing to engage with the topic.
The editorial approach seems to be delving into the purpose of liberalism—whether it should focus on economic growth via housing, education, and welfare. It’s testing popular policies against data, even if the results don’t favor progressive aims. On Tuesday, this meant informing UBI advocates that the evidence doesn’t seem to be on their side.
