Facing increasing scrutiny over its impact on teen mental health and looming legal trials, Meta strategized internally to weaken the influence of social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who has publicly linked social media use to rising depression and anxiety among adolescents.
- Meta planned to enlist academics to challenge Haidt’s research and public influence.
- The company aimed to shape media narratives to diminish Haidt's credibility.
- Internal documents indicate sensitivity to upcoming youth safety litigation risks.
What happened
In early 2023, Meta employees discussed a covert approach dubbed the 'Whisper strategy' targeting Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist who has linked social media platforms to increasing mental health issues in teenagers. These discussions emerged as Meta faced mounting public pressure and legal action related to child safety online.
Court filings reveal internal meeting notes where Meta examined ways to rally other academics against Haidt, encouraging critical responses from methodologists and strategizing how to leverage media and academic networks. The documents reflect efforts to undermine Haidt’s credibility through a combination of public relations and academic contention.
Why it matters
Jonathan Haidt is a prominent critic whose research and public testimony have shaped debates around social media’s impact on adolescent mental health. As lawsuits targeting Meta’s product safety claims approach trial, the company's sensitivity to his influence underscores the reputational and legal risks it faces.
The revealed strategy suggests Meta prioritized managing public narratives and scientific discourse over engaging directly with the underlying research criticisms. Such tactics raise ethical concerns about corporate influence on academic dialogue and the broader conversation around tech responsibility.
What to watch next
Legal trials over Meta’s effects on kids’ mental health are expected to intensify in the coming years, with Haidt’s arguments likely to feature prominently. Observers should monitor how Meta’s approach evolves in response to mounting evidence and public scrutiny.
Additionally, attention will focus on Meta’s transparency regarding internal research on well-being and the extent to which corporate interests may shape scientific inquiry and public messaging around social media risks.