Meta’s Attack on Jonathan Haidt Sparks Backlash

Internal documents from Meta have ignited a firestorm of criticism, uniting the tech giant’s most vocal detractors and its staunchest supporters in shared outrage. The revelation stems from court filings in California detailing a 2023 initiative dubbed the “Whisper strategy,” which involved employees discussing ways to undermine Jonathan Haidt, the author of the bestselling book The Anxious Generation. Haidt has spent years arguing that social media and smartphones are primary drivers of declining mental health among teenagers, a stance he promoted through his 2018 work The Coddling of the American Mind and subsequent testimony before Congress.

The leaked notes suggest Meta considered a “Below-the-line campaign” to turn academics against Haidt. One specific proposal mentioned attempting to “Get Gellman to write a take-down piece,” likely referring to Andrew Gelman, a professor at Columbia University who had previously critiqued Haidt’s methodology. While it remains unclear whether Meta executed these plans, the disclosure has triggered immediate backlash. Meta declined to comment on the matter for this report.

Academics Deny Covert Influence

In response to the allegations, several prominent scholars have moved quickly to distance themselves from any suggestion of corporate influence. Candice Odgers, a psychology professor at Duke University known for her research into technology’s effects on adolescents, published a statement on Substack asserting her independence. She emphasized that her critiques of The Anxious Generation were derived solely from her own scientific analysis.

“No. I was not paid to critique the Anxious Generation”

Odgers stated clearly that she has never been approached by Meta to shape her public commentary. “My views are my own, and are grounded in the years of research I’ve done on this topic,” she wrote, reinforcing that her opposition to Haidt’s theories is based on rigorous academic scrutiny rather than external pressure.

Other critics have expressed deeper moral reservations about the company itself. danah boyd, a communication professor at Cornell University, described Meta as fundamentally unethical while maintaining confidence in her own research findings. Despite acknowledging individual colleagues within the company she respects, she condemned the organization’s core practices. “These days, I have absolutely nothing nice to say about Meta-the-company despite knowing a few amazing people who work there. I think the company is unethical to the core,” boyd said. Nevertheless, she affirmed that her conclusions regarding teen well-being remain supported by data, regardless of Meta’s alleged attempts to manipulate the narrative.

A Polarizing Figure and Scientific Debate

Haidt occupies a contentious space in the discourse surrounding youth mental health. His work has garnered significant attention and support from collaborators such as Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University. However, a segment of the academic community argues that the evidence supporting Haidt’s claims is inconclusive or overstated. Critics maintain that the impact of social media on teens is complex and not uniformly negative, challenging the deterministic nature of Haidt’s arguments.

Andrew Gelman, who was specifically referenced in the Meta discussions, defended Haidt personally while condemning the platform’s tactics. In an interview with The Verge, Gelman expressed dismay that Haidt became the target of such maneuvers. He clarified that while he has accepted funding from Meta in the past, including a $25,000 unrestricted donation in 2016 for general research, none of it pertained to studies on teen mental health.

“The idea that Meta would create a whisper campaign or whatever against any scholar is gross”

Gelman stressed that while Meta has a right to engage in policy debates, doing so covertly is unacceptable. “Doing it behind the scenes, it’s creepy. It’s horrible. I have nothing good to say about that,” he said. He argued that transparency is essential when companies attempt to influence scientific discourse.

Legal Context and Mutual Criticism

The leaked meeting notes emerged from a consolidated lawsuit alleging that Meta and other social media platforms misled the public about safety risks to minors. This legal battle is part of a broader pattern of litigation against Meta, which recently settled claims with state attorneys general for $17.1 billion and faces potential billions more in penalties following recent judicial defeats.

Haidt responded to the revelations by clarifying that he had never accused the researchers named in the filings of being paid by Meta. Instead, he framed the incident as confirmation of the dangers inherent in unchecked corporate power. “Meta’s internal documents also show that the company discussed a plan to distort the academic debate and process, a tactic straight out of the Big Tobacco playbook,” Haidt said in a statement. He noted that his research group has published multiple review papers supporting their findings and welcomed the opportunity for rigorous scientific debate.

“Meta’s own internal studies confirm our finding.”

However, some critics argue that both the corporation and the author share responsibility for muddying the waters. Chris Ferguson, a psychology professor at Stetson University, published a meta-analysis finding limited evidence of a causal link between social media and mental health issues. Ferguson, who receives no funding from tech companies, suggested that Haidt and Meta are inadvertently aligned in their approach.

“Both have been aggressive, and a pernicious influence on our understanding of youth mental health,” Ferguson wrote. He characterized Haidt as a pseudoscientist capitalizing on parental anxiety for profit, while simultaneously viewing Meta as a cynical entity. Ferguson concluded that the situation highlights a growing realization among scientists: it is entirely possible to condemn Meta’s business ethics while rejecting Haidt’s scientific validity.