Three years ago, Meta apparently considered a plan to turn public opinion against one of his most influential opponents, Jonathan Haidt. But since the proposal was revealed in court documents last month, it has backfired. In fact, if there is one thing Anxious generation Author Haidt and his critics agree: it’s being angry at Meta.
Recent court filings in California revealed that Meta employees had discussed in 2023 a “Whisper strategy” to “turn academics against Haidt,” who would soon publish a best-selling book arguing that platforms like Meta’s were harming children. Haidt spent years popularizing his theory that social media and smartphones are to blame for declining teen mental health, including in his 2018 book. The pampering of the American mind and before Congress in 2022. To counter it, Meta apparently considered a “below the line campaign,” including an idea to “Have Gellman write a knockout paper,” possibly a reference to Columbia University statistics and political science professor Andrew Gelman, who had previously publicly criticized Haidt, although the spelling differs.
Meta employees had discussed in 2023 a “Whisper strategy” to “turn academics against Haidt”
It’s unclear whether Meta ever acted on the strategy those employees seemed to consider. But the revelation has sparked a much stronger reaction among both Haidt and his most prominent detractors, most of whom were not mentioned by name. Meta declined to comment for this article.
Several scholars have insisted that Meta had nothing to do with his opposition to Haidt. “No. I wasn’t paid to criticize the Anxious Generation. I came to the conclusion that the science in it was flawed on my own,” reads the title of a Substack post by Candice Odgers, a prominent psychology professor who studies the effects of technology on teenagers and has frequently criticized Haidt’s work. “Meta has never approached me to shape what I say publicly about research on teens and social media,” Odgers wrote. “My opinions are my own and are based on the years of research I have done on this topic.”
“No. I was not paid to criticize the Anxious Generation”
“These days, I have absolutely nothing good to say about Meta-the-company despite knowing some amazing people who work there. I think the company is unethical to the core,” wrote Danah Boyd, a communications professor at Cornell University who has studied how teenagers use social media. “But I continue to stand by my research on adolescents and the research of others who have conducted rigorous analyzes that put adolescents’ lives in context.”
Haidt is an extremely influential but polarizing figure. Through his best-selling book, The anxious generationand related writings, has argued that children’s access to social media and smartphones has contributed to a significant decline in mental health. His work has found support among scholars, including his frequent collaborator and San Diego State University psychology professor Jean Twenge, and Haidt has published responses to the debate over his findings. But other veteran researchers in the field say that the available evidence does not ultimately support their theory, and that the impact of social media on adolescents at the population level is mixed at best.
Although Gelman had previously criticized Haidt’s methods, this time he came to his defense, denouncing Meta’s private discussions. “I think it’s horrible for Haidt that this happened to him,” Gelman said. The edge in an interview. He wrote on his blog that “no one on Facebook or Meta has contacted him regarding Jonathan Haidt or his work.” While he said he had received money from the company in the past, including a “no-strings-attached donation” of $25,000 in 2016 through Columbia for his research, the money has never been linked to the “impact of social media on adolescent health.”
Gelman says Meta has every right to participate in the conversation on the topic, but he should do so openly. “Doing it behind the scenes is creepy. It’s horrible. I don’t have anything good to say about it,” he said.
“The idea that Meta would create a rumor campaign or whatever against any academic is disgusting”
“The idea that Meta could create a rumor campaign or whatever against any academic is disgusting,” Chris Ferguson, a psychology professor at Stetson University, said in an email to The edge. Ferguson published a meta-analysis of experimental studies on the impact of social media on mental health that found limited evidence of a causal effect. Ferguson, who said he does not receive “funding from Meta or any other technology company,” accused both Haidt and Meta of being “more similar than different.”
“Both have been aggressive and a pernicious influence on our understanding of youth mental health,” Ferguson wrote, saying Haidt’s view is not supported by science. “It is possible to see Meta as a big, ugly, cynical, unethical company and, at the same time, see Jonathan Haidt as a pseudoscientist who should know better [than] selling nonsense by taking advantage of parents’ fears to make a profit.”
Notes from the Meta meeting were disclosed in a court filing for a group of consolidated lawsuits against Meta and other social media companies alleging they misled the public about the safety risks of their services to teenagers. Meta has recently faced several high-profile legal defeats in similar cases that could cost it billions in fines, and separately settled claims from state attorneys general for $17.1 billion.
In a statement to The edgeHaidt said he never suggested that Meta paid the researchers named in this article to critique his work, and he has seen no evidence to suggest it. “As a social psychologist who has studied the benefits of viewpoint diversity, I welcome opposing viewpoints and civilized, rigorous scientific debate. The critiques from these researchers have caused my research group and I to deepen and sharpen our arguments,” Haidt says, noting that his research group has published “multiple review articles” laying out evidence that heavy social media use is harmful.
“I am glad to see that so many social scientists express strong criticism of Meta”
“Meta’s own internal studies confirm our finding. Meta’s internal documents also show that the company discussed a plan to distort the debate and academic process, a tactic straight out of the Big Tobacco playbook,” Haidt added. “That should worry anyone who cares about scientific integrity and the well-being of children. I’m glad to see that so many social scientists are expressing strong criticism of Meta for doing so.”
Ferguson said it’s unhealthy for science to be associated with a particular individual, and Haidt himself could do more to discourage it. “I think people are slowly realizing that it’s possible to believe that Meta is evil and that Haidt is full of trash at the same time,” Ferguson said.
