The Chris Cuomo Project

Episode: Inside the Outrage Economy with the Krassenstein Brothers

Date: October 30, 2025
Host: Chris Cuomo
Guests: Brian & Ed Krassenstein

Episode Overview

This episode delves into the "outrage economy" of American politics and digital media, focusing on how social media’s business model rewards division and rage. Chris Cuomo sits down for a candid, sometimes combative conversation with the Krassenstein brothers, two influential progressive voices on the internet. Together, they dissect the origins of their political activism, the mechanics of online discourse, the perils of algorithm-driven polarization, and possibilities for moving political debate and activism toward more constructive ground.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Origins of the Krassenstein Brothers’ Activism (01:42 – 03:28)

• Getting Into Politics
  • Both brothers cite the rise of Donald Trump in 2016 and impending fatherhood as wake-up calls for political engagement.
  • Brian: “I was like, how can this guy be the guy that we're going to elect as president? ... Before that, I wasn't into politics. My wife was. And I think having a kid ... made me think longer term.” (01:42)
  • They began by wanting to fact-check politicians, though initially they weren’t strictly partisan.
  • Ed: “I wasn't even, you know, all in on Hillary. ... I thought she had her flaws ... but I think we saw Trump as not somebody that was going to be good for the country.” (02:47)

2. How Social Media Shapes Discourse (03:28 – 08:09)

• Platforms differ:
  • On X (formerly Twitter), text-based, anonymity-driven, and algorithmic outrage prevail.
  • Brian: “On TikTok or Facebook ... what works over there is dialogue ... Even the lives on TikTok, you have a communication ... more unifying obviously than posting a two sentence tweet and then getting hammered ... by American, part Russian, part, you know, AI bots.” (03:35)
• Online hate is amplified by bots and algorithms; authenticity is increasingly rare.
  • Ed: “When you're on X or Twitter, you just have that text based connection and people are more prone to misread you or think the worst possible out of what you're saying.” (10:36)

3. The Krassenstein Dynamic & Collaboration (05:24 – 08:09)

• The brothers share nearly identical political ideology and work symbiotically.
  • Ed: “We don't really argue too much ... when it comes to ideologies that we differ on.” (05:29)
  • Brian: “All of our businesses stemming back to, you know, selling baseball cards at 15 or together. So I think that works for us.” (07:40)

4. Fakeness, AI, and The “Debate” Problem (08:09 – 12:23)

• Brian: Cites AI-driven interactions and fake accounts as major drivers of toxicity.
  • Example: Using AI (OpenAI’s Atlas) to automatically generate partisan replies on X. (08:44)
  • “You're going to have AIs talking to AIs and it's not even the people and that's going to influence people.” (09:34)
• Ed and Chris Debate the Nature of Online Debates
  • Debates have morphed into performative sport, eclipsing actual solution-focused conversation.
    • Chris: “I don't see any debate as it is conceptually conceived, which is a battle of ideas, do you?” (10:02)
  • Ed: “Everybody wants to be right. And even when they're not right, they want to pretend that they're right ... people jump on top of whatever is going to sell the narrative that they want to sell.” (10:36)
  • Online outrage is profitable; rage bait is boosted by algorithms.

5. Outrage, Protest Movements, and the "No Kings" Protests (14:59 – 20:41)

• Brian’s Analysis of Anti-Trump Efforts
  • Democrats remain fragmented, preoccupied with reacting to Trump’s constant provocations.
  • “If we don't have actual policy initiatives and ways that we can say, hey, this is what we're going to do ... I think Trump will win by distraction.” (14:59)
• Chris on "No Kings" Day
  • Largest protest in US history, intentionally nonviolent, comprised of the “majority”—a signal of hope for broad-based rejection of both parties’ dominance.
  • Quote: “No Kings is proof ... the single biggest day of protest in American history and we don't even talk about it. Why? Because there was no violence. And that's what the media was looking for. Because they get clicks off outrage also.” (16:49)
  • Ed: Emphasizes the nonpartisan nature and potential growth of similar movements: “I expect to see more and more of these protests and probably get larger and larger as we see more because people are jumping on the bandwagon.” (19:42)

6. Rage Bait, Violence, Policing, and Parallels Between MAGA & the Left (20:41 – 29:07)

• Chris: Draws provocative parallels between leftist rhetoric and MAGA-style paranoia, especially regarding calls for arming against the state.
  • “Is the irony lost that you guys now sound exactly like MAGA in the extreme?” (22:41)
• Brothers Clarify:
  • Advocating for self-protection in the face of government overreach, but stop short of encouraging violence. Context matters.
    • Brian: “The reason for the Second Amendment ... was to protect yourself from possible government overreach. ... I don't think you should shoot [ICE agents]. But I do think that ... having a weapon, legally having a weapon ... is something I would recommend.” (24:14)
    • Ed: “I don't know if I agree that ... you should arm yourself because ICE might come into your house ... but I do think it makes people feel safer ... if they feel more protected.” (26:22)
  • Chris underscores the danger of mirroring the extreme logic of opponents and warns of increasing political violence.

7. Social Media Algorithms and Money in Division (32:38 – 39:17)

• Chris: "Nuance is dying and context is dying. And that's why reasonableness is dying.”
• Ed: Customizable algorithms and more in-person conversations could help, but AI trends are moving us further away from that. (37:09)
• Brian: “Social media is monetized ... they're making money on outrage mostly ... the algorithms should ... push forward more positive stories ... what if you went to the creators and the creators can’t monetize content that is ... outrageous or too divisive?” (37:53)
• But no company truly wants to undermine its own ad-driven revenue model.

8. Media Business Models: Outrage Sells (39:17 – 45:36)

• Chris Cuomo on Outrage as a Business Model
  • Offers two (satirical) paths to explosive personal media success:
    • Plan A: Become an “attack dog” for the left.
    • Plan B: Become a caricature of right-wing populism.
  • “Both ways, Cuomo blows up, and you know it. ... my numbers are huge and my revenue is huge and my power is huge. Which should I do?” (44:42)
• Ed: “I would say stay with plan C.” (45:36)
  • Suggests the only path he could live with is honesty and striving for better, even if it isn’t rewarded by the algorithms.

9. Do Things Get Worse Before They Get Better? (47:02 – 48:09)

• Brian: “I think we probably will [see worse]. ... but I do think that the majority of people want ... where you are right now ... if you keep doing what you’re doing ... people are going to get tired of the outrage.” (47:09)
• Chris: Pushes back against the term “middle,” arguing that most Americans aren’t truly represented by partisan sides but default there due to a lack of alternatives.

10. What Wins Elections and the Problem With Populism (52:07 – 55:40)

• 2026/2028 outlook:
  • Brian: House may be in play for Democrats, but the economy will be decisive. Increasing “buyer’s remorse” among some Trump supporters. (52:10)
  • Chris: Cautions against swinging too far left, as the populist-socialist approach might alienate the national majority, though the grievance is real.
  • Ed: “The Bernie's and AOCs are not the ones who will lead the party in 2026 or 2028 ... what leads the party is showing a willingness to fight back against Trump ... But you do see people like Newsom. His approval ratings are going up since he started fighting back.” (54:53)
  • Brian: Notes a quiet, non-combative approach (e.g., Josh Shapiro) may prove most effective in swing states. (57:27)

11. The Future: Economic Anxiety, Automation, and Addressing Inequality (58:30 – 59:28)

• Brian: Predicts that by 2028, economic hardship from AI-driven job losses will dominate politics; whoever effectively addresses middle- and lower-class anxiety will have a winning formula. (58:30)

12. The Limits of Debate, The Necessity of Conversation (59:28 – End)

• Chris: “Conversation is the cure ... people agree on a lot more than they disagree. They're just directed towards the disagreement because it's how people get paid and how they get power.” (59:28)
• All agree: ongoing, good-faith conversation—not debate for spectacle—is key to progress.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Chris Cuomo [10:02]: “I don't see any debate as it is conceptually conceived, which is a battle of ideas, do you?”
• Ed Krassenstein [10:36]: “Everybody wants to be right. And even when they're not right, they want to pretend that they're right ... people jump on top of whatever is going to sell the narrative that they want to sell.”
• Brian Krassenstein [24:14]: “The reason for the Second Amendment ... was to protect yourself from possible government overreach. ... Obviously, if they're ICE breaking your home, I don't think you should shoot them. But ... legally having a weapon, I think, is something I would recommend.”
• Chris Cuomo [32:38]: “Nuance is dying and context is dying. And that's why reasonableness is dying. Except everywhere else in society ... our politics is allowed to exist within a thunderdome hellscape.”
• Chris Cuomo [44:42, satirical]: “Both ways, Cuomo blows up, and you know it ... Which should I do?”
• Ed Krassenstein [45:36]: “I would say stay with plan C.”
• Chris Cuomo [59:28]: “Conversation is the cure ... people agree on a lot more than they disagree. They're just directed towards the disagreement because it's how people get paid and how they get power.”

Timestamps for Major Segments

• [01:42] – Brothers’ political awakening and motives
• [03:28] – How the rage economy works on different social platforms
• [08:09] – How fake is social media? AI, bots, and overseas influence
• [10:02] – The problem with “debate” in current culture
• [14:59] – Can the anti-Trump coalition or Democrats succeed?
• [16:49] – The “No Kings” protests and the potential for authentic majoritarian movements
• [20:41] – Outrage, policing debates, and the left/right arms race
• [32:38] – Algorithms, monetization, and why corporations won’t self-regulate
• [39:17] – Plans A, B (satirical); the personal cost/reward of outrage performance
• [47:02] – Are things destined to get worse before better?
• [52:07] – 2026/2028 midterm predictions; who will be the new face of the left?
• [55:40] – “Fighting back” as political strategy—case study in Newsom and Shapiro
• [58:30] – Economic inequality, automation, AI: the big issues for the next cycle
• [59:28] – “Conversation is the cure”: closing consensus

Tone & Style

• The conversation is candid, sometimes irreverent, and often combative—matching Cuomo’s trademark “let’s get after it” spirit.
• Self-aware humor, mutual jabs, and brotherly banter punctuate the serious debate—helping humanize both the host and guests even as they probe serious issues.

Summary Takeaway

This episode is a frank, wide-ranging look at why American political discourse is so toxic online, and what it might take to restore reason, authenticity, and unity. All agree: outrage may pay, but conversation—hard, slow, and vulnerable as it is—remains the only real cure.