Recent court filings in California have brought to light a 2023 proposal by Meta employees to implement a "Whisper strategy" and below-the-line campaign aimed at turning academics against researcher Jonathan Haidt. The documents, revealed on a court docket for consolidated lawsuits alleging tech companies misled the public about teen safety risks, showed that employees discussed attempting to get Columbia University statistics professor Andrew Gelman to write a critique of Haidt. Haidt has spent years popularizing his theory that smartphones and social media are driving a decline in teen mental health, a view outlined in his 2018 book The Coddling of the American Mind and his bestselling book The Anxious Generation.
Key takeaways
- Meta employees discussed a 2023 "Whisper strategy" to turn academics against Jonathan Haidt.
- Prominent psychology professors like Candice Odgers and danah boyd stated they were never approached or paid by Meta.
- Andrew Gelman condemned Meta's behind-the-scenes actions while confirming he previously received a 2016 research donation from the company.
- The disclosures emerged from court filings in consolidated lawsuits concerning social media safety and teen addiction.
Academic Backlash Against Meta's Maneuvers
While it remains unclear whether Meta ever executed the proposed strategy, the public revelation has provoked sharp criticism from researchers across the academic spectrum, including several who frequently disagree with Haidt. Psychology professor Candice Odgers published a Substack post denying any outside influence on her work, writing that she came to the conclusion that the science in Haidt's book was flawed entirely on her own and that she was never approached by Meta. Similarly, Cornell University communication professor danah boyd stated that she considers Meta "unethical to the core" while maintaining full confidence in her own independent research on teens.
Even scholars who have openly sparred with Haidt over his methodology condemned Meta's tactics. Andrew Gelman told reporters that it is "horrible for Haidt that this happened to him" and labeled behind-the-scenes orchestration as "creepy" and "gross." Gelman acknowledged receiving a $25,000 no-strings-attached research donation through Columbia University from the company in 2016, but emphasized it had no relation to social media and teen health studies.
Broader Scientific Debate and Legal Context
Stetson University psychology professor Chris Ferguson, who has published meta-analyses finding limited evidence of a causal link between social media and mental health decline, also criticized Meta's approach. Ferguson stated that the idea of a whisper campaign against any scholar is gross, while maintaining his critique that Haidt's viewpoints capitalize on parental fears. Meanwhile, Haidt responded to the filings by drawing parallels to tactics from the tobacco industry, stating he was glad social scientists are expressing strong criticism of Meta for attempting to distort academic debate.
The disclosures arrive as Meta continues to navigate major legal battles regarding youth safety. The company faces high-profile legal defeats and recently settled related claims with state attorneys general for $17.1 billion, keeping the tech giant under intense public scrutiny regarding its interactions with researchers and the scientific community.
Comments