Meta’s proposed Haidt campaign unites critics in condemning the company

The proposal, described in the filings as a “Below-the-line campaign,” included an idea to “Get Gellman to write a take-down piece.” It may have referred to Columbia University professor Andrew Gelman, who has previously criticized Haidt’s methods, though the name in the note was spelled differently. The filings do not establish whether Meta acted on the strategy. Meta declined to comment.

Several researchers who have disputed Haidt’s work have publicly rejected any suggestion that Meta influenced them. Candice Odgers, a psychology professor who studies technology’s effects on teens, titled a Substack post: “No. I was not paid to critique the Anxious Generation.” She said she had never been approached by Meta and that her views stem from years of research. Cornell communication professor danah boyd likewise said she stood by her research, while calling Meta “unethical to the core.”

Haidt argues in The Anxious Generation and other writing that smartphones and social media have contributed to a significant decline in young people’s mental health. Some researchers, including frequent collaborator Jean Twenge, support his work; others say evidence does not establish his theory and that social media’s population-level effects are mixed.

Gelman, despite his past criticism of Haidt, condemned the proposed tactic as “creepy” and “horrible,” and said Meta had never contacted him about Haidt or his work. He disclosed receiving a $25,000 no-strings-attached donation through Columbia in 2016, but said it was unrelated to research on social media and teen health. He argued Meta can take part in the debate, but should do so openly.

Stetson University professor Chris Ferguson, who said he receives no funding from Meta or other technology companies, called a whisper campaign against any scholar “gross.” He also criticized Haidt, saying his position was not supported by science and that both Haidt and Meta had adversely influenced discussion of youth mental health. Haidt said he had not accused the researchers named in the article of being paid by Meta, and welcomed rigorous debate. He added that Meta’s internal studies support his findings and that the company’s documents showed a plan to distort academic debate.

The meeting notes appeared in a court docket for consolidated lawsuits alleging Meta and other social media companies misled the public about risks to teens. Meta has faced high-profile legal defeats in similar cases that could cost it billions in penalties, and separately settled claims from state attorneys general for $17.1 billion.