Meta considered a ‘whisper strategy’ to turn academics against Jonathan Haidt

Social media platforms are now willing to actively discredit academic critics, potentially influencing public perception and future litigation outcomes.

Newly filed court documents reveal that Meta considered a "Whisper strategy" in March 2023 to undermine social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, a prominent critic linking social media to rising adolescent depression and anxiety. Meta employees discussed ways to "turn academics against Haidt" and "disavow Haidt," anticipating his influence on upcoming multi-district litigation concerning teen product safety claims. The company, facing numerous legal cases within the next few years, appeared sensitive to Haidt's growing public influence, particularly after he began publishing his theories on Substack. Internal meeting notes suggest Meta explored tactics to "enrage" academics against Haidt and potentially prompt a "take-down piece" from a critic. While it is unclear if these strategies were implemented, the documents highlight Meta's awareness of academic sway and its efforts to manage the public narrative surrounding its impact on youth mental health. Haidt commented that such actions suggest Meta lacked evidence to dispute his research.

This "Whisper strategy" indicates a significant escalation in how tech giants respond to scientific criticism, moving beyond simple PR to active manipulation of academic discourse. The consideration of such tactics, especially with impending litigation, reveals a proactive defensive posture aimed at preemptively shaping the environment in which their product safety is judged. It suggests that companies are willing to engage in covert or indirect campaigns to neutralize influential voices, prioritizing narrative control over direct engagement with research findings.

The tactic, if executed, could have a chilling effect on academic research and public discourse concerning the impact of technology on society. By attempting to sow discord among academics, Meta could dilute credible research and make it harder for the public to access unbiased information. This approach also raises ethical questions about the integrity of the scientific process and the lengths to which powerful entities might go to protect their interests, potentially influencing policy and public opinion.