Table of Contents
Court filings from California have revealed that Meta discussed a strategy in 2023 to turn public opinion against author and academic Jonathan Haidt. The proposal, however, has triggered widespread frustration among both Haidt’s supporters and his most prominent scholarly critics.
The Whisper Strategy Revealed
Internal Meta discussions from 2023 outlined a “Whisper strategy” intended to turn academics against Haidt ahead of the release of his bestselling book, which argues that platforms like Meta harm children. Haidt has spent years attributing a decline in teen mental health to social media and smartphones, building on his previous work and a 2022 appearance before Congress. To counter his claims, Meta employees considered a “Below-the-line campaign,” which included a proposal to have statistics and political science professor Andrew Gelman write a critical piece, referencing a name spelled similarly to Columbia University professor Andrew Gelman, who had previously critiqued Haidt publicly.
It remains unconfirmed whether Meta ever executed the strategy discussed by its employees. Nonetheless, the disclosure prompted swift pushback from researchers who have frequently criticized Haidt’s work, as reported by The Verge. Meta declined to comment for the report.
Academics Respond to the Allegations
Several scholars quickly distanced themselves from Meta following the document release. Psychology professor Candice Odgers published a Substack post emphasizing that her critiques of Haidt’s book stemmed entirely from her own independent research on technology and teens, noting she was never approached by Meta to shape her public views. Similarly, Cornell University communication professor danah boyd stated that while she considers Meta unethical to the core, she firmly stands by her own research and the rigorous analyses of other experts regarding teenagers.
Even Andrew Gelman came to Haidt’s defense regarding the private discussions. In an interview with The Verge, Gelman called the incident horrible for Haidt, adding that he had never been contacted by anyone at Facebook or Meta about Haidt or his work. Although Gelman acknowledged receiving a $25,000 unrestricted research donation from the company through Columbia in 2016, he stressed that the funds were unrelated to teen health or social media impacts. Gelman criticized Meta’s approach, stating that while the company has every right to participate in the conversation, doing so behind the scenes is unacceptable.
Broader Scientific Debate and Lawsuits
Chris Ferguson, a Stetson University psychology professor who has published studies finding limited evidence of a causal link between social media and mental health, also condemned Meta’s tactics in an email to The Verge. Ferguson, who stated he receives no funding from tech companies, asserted that both Meta and Haidt have negatively influenced the understanding of youth mental health, accusing Haidt of capitalizing on parental fears. Ferguson noted that many people believe Meta is a cynical company while simultaneously viewing Haidt’s conclusions as scientifically unsupported.
The meeting notes surfaced within a docket for consolidated lawsuits accusing social media companies of concealing safety risks from teens. Meta has recently encountered major legal losses and a $17.1 billion settlement with state attorneys general.
In a statement to The Verge, Haidt stated he has no evidence that researchers critiquing his work were paid by Meta, welcoming rigorous scientific debate and noting that criticism has helped sharpen his arguments. Haidt added that Meta’s internal documents and studies mirror tactics from the Big Tobacco playbook, and he expressed satisfaction that social scientists are strongly condemning the company’s actions.
