Meta's reported plan to undermine Jonathan Haidt draws anger from his critics too

What the court filings reveal

Court documents filed in California show that Meta employees discussed a plan in 2023 to turn academic opinion against Jonathan Haidt, according to The Verge. Haidt is a social psychologist and author of The Anxious Generation, a bestselling book arguing that social media and smartphones have harmed teenage mental health.

The filings describe what staff called a Whisper strategy, aimed at encouraging researchers to criticise Haidt. One idea mentioned in the notes was a below-the-line campaign, including a suggestion to have a well-known academic write a critical piece. The notes may refer to Andrew Gelman, a Columbia University professor who had previously criticised Haidt's methods, although the name is spelled differently in the documents.

It is not known whether Meta ever carried out the plan. Meta declined to comment when The Verge asked about the documents.

Researchers deny any involvement

Since the filings became public last month, several academics have stated that Meta played no part in their criticism of Haidt. Candice Odgers, a psychology professor who studies how technology affects teenagers, wrote in a Substack post that she was not paid to critique The Anxious Generation and reached her conclusions on her own. She said Meta had never approached her about her public statements on the research.

danah boyd, a communication professor at Cornell University who studies how teenagers use social media, also rejected any suggestion of outside influence. She wrote that she has nothing good to say about Meta as a company, but still stands by her own research and that of others who have analysed teenage lives carefully.

Gelman, despite having criticised Haidt's methods before, defended him this time. He told The Verge that what happened to Haidt was horrible, and wrote on his blog that nobody at Facebook or Meta had ever contacted him about Haidt or his work. He noted he once received a 25,000 dollar donation through Columbia in 2016 for his research, with no conditions attached, and that the money was never connected to social media's effects on teen health.

Critics of Haidt criticise Meta too

The unusual feature of this story is that Haidt's fiercest academic opponents are also angry at Meta. Chris Ferguson, a psychology professor at Stetson University, told The Verge in an email that the idea of a whisper campaign against any scholar was gross. Ferguson conducted a meta-analysis, a study combining many experiments, which found limited evidence that social media causes mental health problems. He said he takes no money from Meta or any other technology company.

Ferguson argued that Haidt and Meta have more in common than either would admit, describing both as aggressive influences on the public understanding of youth mental health. He said it is possible to see Meta as an unethical company and, at the same time, to view Haidt as a researcher whose claims are not supported by the science.

Gelman said Meta has a right to join debates about social media research, but should do so openly rather than behind the scenes, which he called creepy and horrible.

Haidt's response and the wider legal case

In a statement to The Verge, Haidt said he has never claimed that the researchers named in the article were paid by Meta, and has seen no evidence of that. He welcomed opposing views and rigorous debate, saying criticism from these researchers had pushed his group to sharpen its arguments. He added that Meta's internal documents show the company discussed a plan to distort the academic debate, which he compared to tactics used by the tobacco industry.

The meeting notes emerged on the court docket for a group of combined lawsuits against Meta and other social media companies. The suits allege the firms misled the public about safety risks to teenagers. According to The Verge, Meta has recently suffered several significant legal defeats in similar cases that could lead to penalties in the billions, and has separately settled claims from state attorneys general for 17.1 billion dollars.

Why the backlash matters

The episode has united a divided field. Researchers disagree sharply about whether social media genuinely harms teenage mental health at a population level, with Haidt and collaborators such as Jean Twenge of San Diego State University on one side and critics including Odgers and Ferguson on the other.

The filings have shifted attention from that scientific dispute to Meta's conduct. Academics who might otherwise have ignored the story have publicly distanced themselves from the company, and even those who dismiss Haidt's thesis have condemned the idea of a covert campaign against a scholar.

For readers, the episode is a reminder that corporate influence on public debates about technology and health can take subtle forms. It also shows that transparency matters to researchers across the spectrum, whatever their views on the underlying science.