Meta employees sought strategies to discredit social media critic Jonathan Haidt, as revealed by recently unsealed court documents. Haidt, a social psychologist and author of “The Anxious Generation,” has been vocal about the impact of social media and smartphones on youth mental health. Following Meta’s loss in a high-profile social media addiction lawsuit earlier this year, Haidt stated that the company would be judged as harshly as the tobacco industry regarding its effects on young people.
Documents from a March 2023 meeting indicated that an executive, possibly Curtiss Cobb, aimed to undermine Haidt’s credibility. Meta employees discussed targeting the media to frame Haidt as untrustworthy and considered recruiting a media figure referred to as “Gellman” to author a critical piece on him. Additional meeting notes proposed a “whisper strategy” to turn academics against Haidt and brainstormed ways to counter his criticisms.
The revelations drew strong responses from advocacy groups, particularly Fairplay, which criticized Meta for prioritizing its reputation over youth safety. Fairplay’s executive director, Josh Golin, highlighted the need for Meta to address the merits of Haidt’s evidence-based criticisms instead of attempting to discredit him.
The documents emerged amid federal litigation where several school districts allege that Meta contributes to a teen mental health crisis. A judge overseeing the case, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, has criticized Meta’s attempts to shield information under attorney-client privilege, leading to the appointment of a special master to assess the company’s document handling.
Why this story matters: The findings illustrate the lengths to which major companies may go to protect their interests amid growing concerns about social media’s impact on youth.
Key takeaway: Efforts to discredit credible criticism can undermine accountability for the consequences of corporate practices.
Opposing viewpoint: Some argue that companies like Meta are merely defending themselves against unfounded allegations rather than ignoring legitimate concerns.
