Court filings in California have revealed that Meta employees discussed in 2023 a “Whisper strategy” aimed at turning academics against Jonathan Haidt, the author who would soon publish a bestselling book arguing that platforms like Meta’s were harming children. The internal discussions included a proposed “Below-the-line campaign,” with one idea to have a take-down piece written by someone identified as “Gellman” - possibly a reference to Columbia University statistics and political science professor Andrew Gelman, who had previously critiqued Haidt publicly, though the spelling differs. It is unclear whether Meta ever acted on the strategy the employees appeared to consider. Meta declined to comment.
The disclosure has drawn backlash from academics on multiple sides of the social media and mental health debate, including some of Haidt’s most prominent detractors, most of whom were not named in the filings. Candice Odgers, a psychology professor who studies the effects of technology on teens and has frequently critiqued Haidt’s work, wrote in a Substack post that she was not paid to critique The Anxious Generation and concluded on her own that the science in it was flawed. Odgers said she has never been approached by Meta to shape her public statements on adolescent and social media research.
danah boyd, a communication professor at Cornell University who has studied how teens use social media, wrote that she has nothing nice to say about Meta these days and considers the company unethical to the core, while standing by her own research on teens and the rigorous work of others. Gelman, despite his past critiques of Haidt’s methods, came to Haidt’s defense and told The Verge that what happened to Haidt is horrible. Gelman wrote on his blog that no one at Facebook or Meta has ever contacted him about Haidt or his work, and said that while he received money from the company in the past, including a $25,000 “no-strings-attached donation” in 2016 through Columbia for his research, it was never related to social media’s impact on teen health.
Chris Ferguson, a psychology professor at Stetson University, told The Verge in an email that the idea of Meta creating a whisper campaign against any scholar is gross. Ferguson, who said he receives no funding from Meta or any other tech company and who published a meta-analysis of experimental studies finding limited evidence of a causal effect between social media and mental health, accused Haidt and Meta of being more similar than different, describing both as aggressive and a pernicious influence on understanding of youth mental health.
The meeting notes were disclosed on a court docket for a group of consolidated lawsuits against Meta and other social media companies alleging they misled the public about safety risks to teens. Meta has recently faced several high-profile legal defeats in similar cases that could cost it billions in penalties, and separately settled claims from state attorneys general for $17.1 billion.
In a statement to The Verge, Haidt said he has never suggested the researchers named were paid by Meta to critique his work and has not seen evidence to that effect. Haidt said criticism from these researchers has pushed him and his research group to dig deeper and sharpen their arguments, and noted the group has published multiple review papers laying out evidence that heavy social media use is harmful. He said Meta’s internal studies confirm his finding, that the company discussed a plan to distort the academic debate, and that the tactic is straight out of the Big Tobacco playbook, adding that he is glad so many social scientists are expressing strong criticism of Meta. Ferguson said it is not healthy for science to be associated with any one individual.
More technology news from TechManNews.
