Meta Internal Documents Reveal Whisper Strategy Against Critic Jonathan Haidt
Court filings expose Meta's internal discussions to discredit academic Jonathan Haidt's research.
1Internal Strategy Leaks
Court documents reveal that Meta employees discussed a whisper strategy to undermine Jonathan Haidt. The internal notes, titled Well-being Meeting Sound-check, explicitly mention efforts to get the academic community to disavow the author. These discussions occurred before the publication of his 2024 book, The Anxious Generation, which links smartphone usage to mental health.
2Targeting Academic Credibility
The meeting minutes from March 8, 2023, reference then-vice-president of research Curtiss Cobb. The strategy aimed to enrage the academic community so that media outlets would view Haidt as not credible. Staff explicitly noted that they were not considering a loud strategy, but rather a below-the-line campaign to effectively discredit his research findings.
3The Gellman Connection
Documents suggest Meta considered commissioning a takedown piece from an individual identified as Gellman. Andrew Gelman, a Columbia University professor, confirmed he received past funding from Mark Zuckerberg’s company on a no-strings basis. However, he stated he was never hired by Meta to perform a hit job on Jonathan Haidt regarding his research.
4Haidt’s Public Response
Jonathan Haidt responded to the revelations by stating he was not surprised by the company's internal discussions. He argued that when large corporations cannot successfully dispute scientific evidence, they resort to attacking the messenger. Haidt remains a vocal advocate for strict digital regulations, including potential bans on social media for children under sixteen.
5Context of Litigation
The documents surfaced during ongoing litigation brought by various school districts against Meta. These legal proceedings focus on the company's impact on student mental health and safety. The disclosure of these internal meeting minutes provides a rare glimpse into how the tech giant manages public criticism from influential academics and policy advocates.
6Regulatory Impact Efforts
Haidt’s work has significantly influenced global policy debates regarding online safety. His research contributed to discussions about under-16 social media bans in Australia and the United Kingdom. Earlier this year, UK health secretary Wes Streeting requested that Haidt address officials regarding potential legislative measures to restrict digital media access for young people.
7Execution Uncertainty
While the meeting minutes detail specific plans to debunk Haidt’s work and turn academics against him, it remains unclear if Meta officially acted on these proposals. The documents reflect internal brainstorming sessions rather than confirmed corporate policy. The company has not provided further clarification on whether these specific strategies were ever implemented or funded.
8Corporate Reputation Risks
This incident highlights the tension between tech giants and independent researchers studying digital impacts. By attempting to orchestrate academic disavowal, companies risk significant reputational damage if internal communications become public. The case underscores the challenges of managing scientific scrutiny in an era where digital platforms face intense pressure from regulators and public health advocates.