Meta’s alleged anti-Haidt campaign united critics of Haidt

Meeting notes disclosed in California court filings show that Meta employees discussed a 2023 “Whisper strategy” to “turn academics against Jonathan Haidt” before he published the bestseller The Anxious Generation. Haidt had spent years arguing that social media and smartphone access contributed to a significant decline in children’s mental health.

The notes also described a “Below-the-line campaign,” including the idea “Get Gellman to write a take-down piece,” according to the filing. The name may refer to Andrew Gelman, a Columbia University statistics and political science professor who had publicly criticized Haidt’s methods, although the notes misspell it as “Gellman.”

Meta declined to comment for this article. The excerpts establish discussion, not execution: it remains unclear whether anyone acted on the strategy, and most of Haidt’s prominent detractors were not named in the notes.

Takeaway: The documents show a proposed covert strategy, not proof that Meta carried one out.

What do Haidt’s critics say about Meta?

Candice Odgers, a prominent psychology professor who studies technology’s effects on teenagers, rejected the payment allegation in a Substack post. She wrote: “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.”

Odgers added: “I have never been approached by Meta to shape what I say publicly about the research on adolescents and social media.” She said: “My views are my own, and are grounded in the years of research I’ve done on this topic.”

Her account matters because the debate now joins questions of scientific evidence with questions of corporate influence over that evidence. The proposed Meta strategy offered critics of Haidt a possible explanation for research that had challenged his causal claim.

danah boyd, a Cornell University communication professor who studies how teenagers use social media, was equally direct. “These days, I have absolutely nothing nice to say about Meta-the-company despite knowing a few amazing people who work there,” boyd wrote. “I think the company is unethical to the core,” she added.

She nevertheless said: “But I still stand by my research on teens and the research of others who have done rigorous analyses putting teens’ lives into context.” Boyd’s position criticizes Meta without accepting that the company directed the critical research.

Takeaway: The named scholars say their criticism was independent, though the filings cannot independently verify those accounts.

Why did Andrew Gelman defend Haidt?

Andrew Gelman had previously criticized Haidt’s methods, but he rejected the suggestion that Meta recruited him. “I think it’s horrible for Haidt that this happened to him,” Gelman told The Verge in an interview.

Gelman wrote on his blog that he had “never been contacted by anyone at Facebook or Meta regarding Jonathan Haidt or his work.” He also disclosed a $25,000 “no-strings-attached donation” from Meta in 2016, made through Columbia for his research.

He said that money had never related to “social media’s impact on teen health.” Gelman said Meta had every right to join the debate, but should do so openly: “Doing it behind the scenes, it’s creepy. It’s horrible. I have nothing good to say about that.”

Takeaway: Gelman’s disclosure separates past research funding from the alleged effort to direct criticism of Haidt.

Why is Chris Ferguson criticizing both sides?

Chris Ferguson, a Stetson University psychology professor, called the proposed tactic “gross.” In an email to The Verge, he said: “The idea that Meta would create a whisper campaign or whatever against any scholar is gross.”

Ferguson published a meta-analysis, or statistical synthesis of experimental studies, on social media’s impact on mental health. He found limited evidence of a causal effect, meaning studies did not consistently show that social media caused worse mental-health outcomes. He said he receives “no funding from Meta or any other tech company.”

Ferguson also accused Haidt and Meta of being “more similar than different.” “Both have been aggressive, and a pernicious influence on our understanding of youth mental health,” he wrote, while saying Haidt’s viewpoint lacked scientific support.

He added: “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.”

Takeaway: Ferguson’s position rejects Meta’s conduct without accepting Haidt’s account of the evidence.

What does the evidence say about teen mental health?

Haidt is an extremely influential but polarizing figure in the social media and mental-health debate, according to The Verge’s reporting. He built his public case around the claim that social media and smartphones contributed to a significant decline in children’s mental health.

He advanced the argument in his 2018 book The Coddling of the American Mind and spoke before Congress in 2022. His bestselling The Anxious Generation expanded the case against social platforms and their effects on younger users.

Jean Twenge, a San Diego State University psychology professor and frequent collaborator, has supported Haidt’s work. Haidt has published responses to the debate, including “multiple review papers” presenting evidence that heavy social media use is harmful. He said criticism caused his group to “dig deeper and sharpen our arguments.”

Other longtime researchers say the available evidence does not ultimately support Haidt’s theory. Researchers interviewed by The Verge described the effect across young people as at most mixed, while Ferguson’s analysis found limited evidence that social media caused worse mental-health outcomes.

Haidt nevertheless argued that “Meta’s own internal studies confirm our finding.” The excerpts do not identify those studies or reproduce their findings, leaving his claim unsupported by anything shown in the disclosed notes.

Haidt called Meta’s proposed strategy “a tactic straight out of the Big Tobacco playbook.” He said the episode “should concern anyone who cares about scientific integrity and the well-being of children.” He added: “I am glad to see that so many social scientists are expressing strong criticism of Meta for doing so.”

Haidt said he had never suggested the researchers named in the article were paid by Meta and had seen no evidence of that. “As a social psychologist who has studied the benefits of viewpoint diversity, I welcome opposing views and civil, rigorous scientific debate,” he said.

Takeaway: The filings raise a conflict-of-interest concern; they do not resolve the unsettled science of teen mental health.

Why do the lawsuits make this consequential?

The Meta meeting notes entered a California docket for consolidated lawsuits against Meta and other social media companies. Those cases allege that the platforms misled the public about their services’ safety risks to teenagers.

The Verge reported that Meta recently suffered several high-profile legal defeats in similar cases, which could cost the company billions in penalties. Separately, Meta settled claims from state attorneys general for $17.1 billion.

These cases place Meta’s conduct toward a critic of its safety record inside a broader corporate-accountability process. The evidence still cannot show that the proposed strategy took effect, and it cannot settle whether social media caused a population-wide decline in teen mental health.

Takeaway: The teen-safety litigation makes Meta’s research conduct consequential, but it does not prove the proposed strategy took effect.

What remains unresolved?

To prove a covert influence effort, further evidence would need to connect Meta’s internal discussion to communications, payments, publication plans, or coordinated action. The excerpts described in the filings provide no such link, and Meta declined to comment.

Ferguson said it was unhealthy for science to become associated with one individual. “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,” he said.

Haidt’s position is that rigorous criticism has improved his work and that Meta’s conduct threatens scientific integrity. Ferguson’s position is that Meta can be unethical while Haidt also distorts youth mental-health research. Their agreement is limited to discomfort with Meta’s private discussion.

Takeaway: The next evidentiary test is whether records connect the discussion to action; anger at Meta proves neither influence nor scientific consensus.