|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Meta employees discussed a proposed “whisper strategy” to persuade academics to turn against social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, according to newly unredacted court documents filed in litigation over the alleged effects of social media on children and teenagers.
The internal discussions, dating to March 2023, show that Meta staff were concerned about Haidt’s growing influence as a critic of social media and his arguments linking smartphones and social platforms to worsening mental health among young people.
The documents indicate that employees considered approaches aimed at influencing the academic and media debate around Haidt rather than simply responding publicly to his research.
One set of meeting notes described a proposal to “turn other academics against Haidt” and referred to a “whisper strategy.” Another note from the following day attributed a goal to then Meta research executive Curtiss Cobb of getting the academic community to disavow Haidt.
The documents do not establish that Meta ultimately carried out the proposed campaign.
That distinction is important because the material currently available shows internal discussion and proposed strategies, rather than proof that the company successfully organised academics or media organisations to attack Haidt.
The documents surfaced as part of ongoing US litigation involving allegations about the impact of social media platforms on young people. The material became public after documents previously withheld on privilege grounds were re-reviewed and filed in the litigation.
The controversy centres on Haidt because of his growing role in the debate over adolescent mental health and social media.
Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University’s Stern School of Business, has argued that the widespread adoption of smartphones and social media contributed substantially to the deterioration in young people’s mental health.
His arguments became especially influential through his 2024 book, The Anxious Generation, although the internal Meta discussions described in the court documents occurred before the book was published.
By early 2023, Haidt had already begun publishing research reviews and arguments about adolescent mental health through his newsletter, and Meta employees were discussing how his work could affect the public debate and future litigation.
The March 7 meeting notes appear to identify Haidt as a particular concern.
One proposal suggested finding strong methodologists who could challenge his arguments more forcefully. The notes also referred to both short-term and long-term approaches, with employees anticipating that Haidt’s arguments could become relevant to multidistrict litigation.
The following day’s notes went further.
They described a goal of determining how to get the academic community to “disavow” Haidt and discussed influencing the media so that journalists would regard him as lacking credibility.
The notes characterised the proposed approach as a “below-the-line campaign,” suggesting that employees were considering indirect rather than openly confrontational methods.
Another line referred to getting “Gellman” to write a “take-down piece.”
The reference appears potentially to be Andrew Gelman, a professor of statistics and political science at Columbia University who had publicly criticised aspects of Haidt’s work.
Gelman, however, has said that Meta never contacted him about Haidt.
In a post published after the documents became public, Gelman said he had never been contacted by Facebook or Meta regarding Haidt or his work. He acknowledged having received unrestricted funding from Facebook in the past but said that funding was not connected to research on the effect of social media on teenagers’ health.
His response adds an important qualification to the documents.
The notes demonstrate that someone within Meta discussed the possibility of involving “Gellman,” but they do not establish that the person identified was Gelman or that Meta ever approached him.
That distinction is particularly important when interpreting internal corporate documents containing shorthand notes.
The material appears to have been written during meetings rather than presented as a final corporate strategy. Some entries are fragmentary and contain abbreviated language, making it difficult to determine precisely which ideas were adopted, rejected or simply discussed.
There is also no evidence in the documents themselves that the proposed strategy succeeded in changing academic opinion about Haidt.
In fact, criticism of Haidt’s interpretation of the evidence existed independently within the academic community.
Researchers have challenged his conclusions about the relationship between digital technology and adolescent mental health, arguing that the evidence is more complicated than a direct causal relationship between social media use and the worsening mental health trends observed among young people.
That debate is important because the scientific dispute did not begin with the documents now emerging from the Meta litigation.
Researchers have published competing interpretations of the available evidence for years.
Some studies and reviews have reported relatively small associations between social media use and mental health outcomes, while other researchers have argued that the effects may be more significant for certain groups or under particular conditions.
Haidt’s position has nonetheless gained considerable public attention.
His work has been cited in discussions about smartphone use, school policies, parental restrictions and proposed limits on children’s access to social media.
The debate has also moved beyond academia.
Governments, schools and parents have increasingly considered policies aimed at reducing children’s exposure to social media and smartphones, particularly amid continuing concerns about adolescent wellbeing.
That makes the internal Meta discussions particularly significant from a corporate and regulatory perspective.
For a company facing growing scrutiny over the effects of its products, the emergence of a prominent academic critic creates a communications challenge that can extend into legal proceedings and policymaking.
The documents indicate that Meta employees were aware of this potential impact.
One note explicitly referenced upcoming multidistrict litigation and suggested that Haidt’s arguments could feature in those cases.
That provides context for why the company may have viewed the academic debate as strategically important.
The litigation itself concerns allegations that social media companies knowingly designed products in ways that could harm children and teenagers.
Meta has faced claims from families, school districts, states and other parties relating to the alleged effects of its platforms on young users.
The company has disputed allegations that its platforms are responsible for a broad youth mental health crisis.
The newly disclosed documents therefore have relevance beyond the dispute between Meta and one academic.
They raise questions about how technology companies respond when researchers produce evidence or arguments that could influence public policy, regulation and litigation.
The central issue is not whether Meta was entitled to challenge Haidt’s research.
Companies, researchers and other interested parties can legitimately criticise academic findings, identify methodological weaknesses and publish alternative evidence.
The concern raised by the documents is instead about the proposed method of influencing the wider academic community.
A direct scientific response would normally involve publishing competing research, challenging methodology, producing alternative analyses or engaging in open academic debate.
The language contained in the internal notes describes something different: an effort to influence how other academics and the media perceived Haidt.
Whether that proposed approach was ever implemented remains unresolved.
Meta was approached for comment regarding the documents, but the available reporting did not include a substantive company response addressing whether the strategy was carried out.
Haidt, meanwhile, said he was not surprised by the revelations and argued that the documents suggested the company was more interested in influencing the scientific community than directly addressing his research.
His interpretation is contested by the broader academic debate, where researchers have independently raised methodological objections to his conclusions.
That distinction matters because criticism of Haidt cannot automatically be attributed to Meta.
Several academics who disagree with Haidt have publicly developed their own arguments based on their interpretation of research into adolescents, smartphones and social media.
One prominent critic, Candice Odgers, has previously argued that evidence does not support some of the stronger claims made about digital technology causing an adolescent mental health crisis.
Odgers has also said that her views were not shaped by Meta.
That makes the newly disclosed documents a complicated development.
They appear to show that some Meta employees considered a coordinated effort to influence perceptions of Haidt. At the same time, the existence of independent academic criticism means the documents cannot reasonably be used to conclude that criticism of Haidt generally originated with Meta.
The distinction between influence and evidence will likely remain central as the litigation progresses.
For Meta, the episode creates another reputational challenge at a time when the company faces intense scrutiny over the design and safety of its platforms.
The company operates some of the world’s largest social media services, including Facebook and Instagram, giving its decisions significant influence over how billions of people communicate and consume information.
Its handling of research concerning children is therefore closely watched by regulators, academics and policymakers.
The documents could also become relevant to questions about corporate governance and internal decision-making.
If employees believed that influencing researchers was an appropriate response to criticism, investigators and courts may examine how those ideas were developed, who knew about them and whether they translated into actual corporate activity.
However, the current evidence does not answer those questions conclusively.
The documents show discussions. They do not establish that every proposal was approved, implemented or successful.
For the public, the episode also underscores the difficulty of separating scientific disagreement from corporate communications strategy.
The debate surrounding social media and adolescent mental health is complex, and researchers continue to disagree over the size, direction and causes of observed effects.
That debate should ultimately be resolved through transparent evidence, reproducible research and open academic criticism rather than assumptions about who is behind a particular argument.
The newly disclosed Meta documents add another layer to that debate.
They show that at least some company employees considered an indirect strategy for weakening Jonathan Haidt’s influence among academics and the media at a time when his arguments were gaining visibility and could potentially affect future litigation.
They do not, however, establish that the proposed strategy was carried out or that academic criticism of Haidt was coordinated by Meta.
That distinction will remain important as more documents emerge from the litigation.
For now, the revelation puts a fresh spotlight on the relationship between technology companies, independent researchers and the public debate over social media’s impact on young people.
It also raises a broader question for the technology industry: when a researcher presents evidence that could damage a company’s reputation or expose it to legal risk, should the response be a public scientific rebuttal, an internal review of the evidence, or an effort to influence the people debating the research?
The court documents show that, at least in this case, some Meta employees discussed the third option.
Whether those discussions went further remains a question that the available evidence has not yet answered.
