Meta has ticked off academics on all sides of the social media and mental health debate.
Meta has ticked off academics on all sides of the social media and mental health debate.
Three years ago, Meta apparently considered a plan to turn public opinion against one of its most influential opponents, Jonathan Haidt. But since the proposal was revealed in court filings last month, it’s backfired. In fact, if there’s one thing Anxious Generation author Haidt and his critics can agree on, it’s being mad 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 bestselling book arguing that platforms like Meta’s were hurting kids. Haidt had spent years popularizing his theory that social media and smartphones are to blame for the decline in teens’ mental health, including in his 2018 book The Coddling of the American Mind and before Congress in 2022 . To counter it, Meta apparently considered a “Below-the-line campaign,” including one idea to “Get Gellman to write a take-down piece” — possibly a reference to Columbia University statistics and political science professor Andrew Gelman, who’d previously publicly critiqued Haidt, though the spelling differs.
Meta employees had discussed in 2023 a “Whisper strategy” to “turn academics against Haidt”
It’s unclear if Meta ever acted on the strategy those employees appeared to consider. But the revelation has stirred up a much louder backlash among both Haidt and his most prominent detractors, most of whom weren’t mentioned by name. Meta declined to comment for this article.
Several academics have come forward to insist Meta had no hand in their opposition to Haidt. “No. I was not paid to critique the Anxious Generation. I came to the conclusion that the science featured in it was flawed all on my own,” reads the title of a Substack post from Candice Odgers, a prominent psychology professor who studies the effects of tech on teens and has frequently critiqued Haidt’s work. “I have never been approached by Meta to shape what I say publicly about the research on adolescents and social media,” Odgers wrote. “My views are my own , and are grounded in the years of research I’ve done on this topic.”
“No. I was not paid to critique the Anxious Generation”
“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,” wrote danah boyd , a communication professor at Cornell University who has studied how teens use social media . “But I still stand by my research on teens and the research of others who have done rigorous analyses putting teens’ lives into context.”
Haidt is an extremely influential but polarizing figure. Through his bestselling book, The Anxious Generation , and related writing, he has made the case that social media and smartphone access for kids has contributed to a significant decline in mental health. His work has found support among academics including frequent collaborator and San Diego State University psychology professor Jean Twenge, and Haidt has published responses to the debate over his findings. But other longtime researchers in the field say the available evidence does not ultimately support his theory, and social media’s impact on teens at the population level is at most mixed.
Though Gelman has previously critiqued 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 told The Verge in an interview. He wrote on his blog that he’s “never been contacted by anyone at Facebook or Meta regarding Jonathan Haidt or his work.” While he said he has received money from the company in the past, including a $25,000 “no-strings-attached donation” in 2016 through Columbia for his research, the money has never been related to “social media’s impact on teen health.”
Gelman says that Meta has every right to be in the conversation on the topic — but it should do so openly. “Doing it behind the scenes, it’s creepy. It’s horrible. I have nothing good to say about that,” he said.
“The idea that Meta would create a whisper campaign or whatever against any scholar is gross”
“The idea that Meta would create a whisper campaign or whatever against any scholar is gross,” said Chris Ferguson, a Stetson University psychology professor, in an email to The Verge . Ferguson published a meta-analysis of experimental studies on social media’s impact on mental health that found limited evidence of a causal effect. Ferguson, who said he receives “no funding from Meta or any other tech 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 that Haidt’s viewpoint is not backed up by science. “It’s possible to view Meta as a big, ugly, cynical, unethical company and, at the same time, view Jonathan Haidt as a pseudoscientist who should know better [than] to peddle nonsense capitalizing on parental fears for profit.”
The Meta meeting notes were disclosed on a court docket for a group of consolidated lawsuits against Meta and other social media companies alleging they misled the public about their services’ safety risks to teens. Meta has recently faced several high-profile legal defeats in similar cases that could cost it billions in penalties , and separately settled claims from state attorneys general for $17.1 billion.
In a statement to The Verge , Haidt said he’s never suggested the researchers named in this article were paid by Meta to critique his work, and hasn’t seen evidence to suggest that. “As a social psychologist who has studied the benefits of viewpoint diversity, I welcome opposing views and civil, rigorous scientific debate. Criticism by these researchers has caused me and my research group to dig deeper and sharpen our arguments,” Haidt says, noting that his research group has published “multiple review papers” laying out evidence that heavy social media use is harmful.
“I am glad to see that so many social scientists are expressing 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 academic debate and process, a tactic straight out of the Big Tobacco playbook,” Haidt added. “That should concern anyone who cares about scientific integrity and the well-being of children. I am glad to see that so many social scientists are expressing strong criticism of Meta for doing so.”
Ferguson said it’s not healthy for science to be associated with any one individual, and that Haidt himself could do more to discourage that. “I think people are slowly realizing it’s possible both to believe that Meta is evil and Haidt is full of crap at the same time,” Ferguson said.
This is the title for the native ad
This is the title for the native ad
