In recent years, Meta has faced increased scrutiny regarding the negative impact of social media—particularly Facebook and Instagram—on the mental health and wellness of teens and children. Faced with a growing push to do something, Meta sprang into action… to strategize on how to undermine its biggest critic.
According to recently filed court documents in an ongoing legal challenge brought against Meta and other social media giants, it appears that Meta considered launching a “whisper strategy” to discredit Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and the author of “The Anxious Generation,” a book that argues smartphones and social media have adversely impacted young people, leading to deteriorating mental health and contributing to a spike in teen anxiety, depression, and self-harm.
Within that document is a section labeled “Well-being Meeting Sound-check Notes,” which appears to be a running collection of shorthand notes taken from a meeting seemingly held on Tuesday, March 7, 2023, and shows a team within Meta considering how to deal with Haidt, who at the time had just recently launched a Substack to expand on his research and share thoughts on news relevant to his work.
Within the notes is the suggestion, “turn other academics against Haidt — lot of strong methodologists to say things more forcefully.” They acknowledge within the notes that Haidt’s research is likely to feature prominently in any legal actions against Meta on the topic of children’s mental health, so there is a sense of urgency to seemingly start the process of discrediting him. In the same set of notes, they describe a “whisper strategy” rather than a direct response, hoping that the doubt sown about the research will make its way into the media.
A day later, on March 8, a note states that Meta’s then-vice president of research, Curtiss Cobb, is tasked with figuring out “how do we get the academic community to disavow Haidt,” noting, “can’t co-opt them, so how do we enrage them.” Two ideas they appear to settle on include trying to recruit big names in academia to refute Haidt in the media.
One name mentioned in the notes is “Gellman,” which may refer to Columbia University statistics and political science professor Andrew Gelman, who has critiqued Haidt’s research on his own blog. “Get Gellman to write a take-down piece,” the message reads. In a recent post, Gelman said that he was never actually contacted by Meta to pen a takedown. So either it was another “Gellman,” or Meta simply never went forward with that particular approach.
Gelman did also note, despite his criticisms of Haidt, “This revelation about Facebook’s public relations team is absolutely horrible—we’re talking about some of the richest and most powerful people in the world conspiring to interfere with the open processes of science, journalism, and the law.”
Meta probably did not need to engage in subterfuge as it relates to Haidt—the academic community seems to have generated plenty of organic critiques and criticisms of Haidt’s work. There’s a whole ass book, “Restoring Childhood” by research psychologist and Boston College professor Peter Gray, that just came out this year that spends much of its time refuting Haidt’s theory.
Whether or not the company actually went through with its attempt to discredit its leading critic is less important than the fact that it not only had the idea but spent multiple meetings debating the best strategy and seemingly went so far as to assign some of its high-ranking officials to handle it. Faced with a crisis of public health, the company chose to address a crisis of public relations.
Meta did not respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment.
