Recent court documents that were unsealed reveal that Meta employees strategized on ways to persuade the academic community to distance themselves from social media critic Jonathan Haidt. This was apparently an effort to counter claims regarding the role of their platforms in a mental health crisis among teenagers.
Haidt, a social psychologist known for his bestselling work “The Anxious Generation,” has been a prominent critic of Big Tech, specifically pointing to the negative impact of smartphones and social media on young people. After Meta’s loss in a significant social media addiction lawsuit in Los Angeles, Haidt remarked that the company’s actions might be judged by history in a manner similar to the tobacco industry.
A filing that came to light last Friday in a California federal court illustrated the lengths Meta was willing to go to challenge his stance. The documents included notes from a company meeting in March 2023, where an executive, possibly Curtiss Cobb, expressed a desire to discredit Haidt.
The notes indicated that the executive believed focusing on media portrayals was essential to undermine Haidt’s credibility. The employees also contemplated reaching out to a media person described as “Gellman” to create a negative piece about Haidt, though Gellman’s identity remains unknown.
In addition, there were discussions about employing a “whisper strategy” aimed at turning academics against Haidt, considering ways to “debunk” his arguments.
Neither Meta nor Haidt’s representatives responded to requests for comment. It’s uncertain whether Meta acted on these strategies. Fairplay, a group that critically monitors Meta’s actions towards young users, expressed outrage at these disclosures, arguing that the firm was prioritizing its reputation over the well-being of youth regarding its platforms.
Josh Golin, the executive director of Fairplay, emphasized that instead of addressing Haidt’s evidence-based critiques, Meta sought a covert plan to discredit him, despite the influence of his book on parental advocacy. The documents also contained an email from a Meta employee complaining about the legal team’s attempts to obstruct a planned study focused on youth emotional trends.
Nick Clegg, former head of global affairs at Meta, mentioned in an email that a presentation on youth well-being might stir up questions about app design issues that the company wanted to sidestep.
The unsealed documents were part of a broader federal case in California aimed at consolidating multiple litigation efforts involving social media addiction and related harms. A coalition of school districts has accused Meta of playing a role in the escalating mental health issues among teenagers. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is overseeing these proceedings.
The release of these documents followed a protracted court battle where plaintiffs accused Meta of misusing attorney-client privilege to hide numerous records. Ultimately, Judge Gonzalez Rogers appointed a retired US Judge, Suzanne Segal, as an independent “special master” to assess around 170,000 documents and decide what should be disclosed.
As reported earlier, the judge criticized Meta for having made caps for its employees inscribed with “attorney-client privilege” to celebrate the introduction of Instagram’s Teen Accounts in 2024. During a hearing, she remarked on the unusual nature of such a celebration regarding legal matters.
Documents reveal Meta’s plan to undermine prominent social media commentator Jonathan Haidt.
Recent court documents that were unsealed reveal that Meta employees strategized on ways to persuade the academic community to distance themselves from social media critic Jonathan Haidt. This was apparently an effort to counter claims regarding the role of their platforms in a mental health crisis among teenagers.
Haidt, a social psychologist known for his bestselling work “The Anxious Generation,” has been a prominent critic of Big Tech, specifically pointing to the negative impact of smartphones and social media on young people. After Meta’s loss in a significant social media addiction lawsuit in Los Angeles, Haidt remarked that the company’s actions might be judged by history in a manner similar to the tobacco industry.
A filing that came to light last Friday in a California federal court illustrated the lengths Meta was willing to go to challenge his stance. The documents included notes from a company meeting in March 2023, where an executive, possibly Curtiss Cobb, expressed a desire to discredit Haidt.
The notes indicated that the executive believed focusing on media portrayals was essential to undermine Haidt’s credibility. The employees also contemplated reaching out to a media person described as “Gellman” to create a negative piece about Haidt, though Gellman’s identity remains unknown.
In addition, there were discussions about employing a “whisper strategy” aimed at turning academics against Haidt, considering ways to “debunk” his arguments.
Neither Meta nor Haidt’s representatives responded to requests for comment. It’s uncertain whether Meta acted on these strategies. Fairplay, a group that critically monitors Meta’s actions towards young users, expressed outrage at these disclosures, arguing that the firm was prioritizing its reputation over the well-being of youth regarding its platforms.
Josh Golin, the executive director of Fairplay, emphasized that instead of addressing Haidt’s evidence-based critiques, Meta sought a covert plan to discredit him, despite the influence of his book on parental advocacy. The documents also contained an email from a Meta employee complaining about the legal team’s attempts to obstruct a planned study focused on youth emotional trends.
Nick Clegg, former head of global affairs at Meta, mentioned in an email that a presentation on youth well-being might stir up questions about app design issues that the company wanted to sidestep.
The unsealed documents were part of a broader federal case in California aimed at consolidating multiple litigation efforts involving social media addiction and related harms. A coalition of school districts has accused Meta of playing a role in the escalating mental health issues among teenagers. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is overseeing these proceedings.
The release of these documents followed a protracted court battle where plaintiffs accused Meta of misusing attorney-client privilege to hide numerous records. Ultimately, Judge Gonzalez Rogers appointed a retired US Judge, Suzanne Segal, as an independent “special master” to assess around 170,000 documents and decide what should be disclosed.
As reported earlier, the judge criticized Meta for having made caps for its employees inscribed with “attorney-client privilege” to celebrate the introduction of Instagram’s Teen Accounts in 2024. During a hearing, she remarked on the unusual nature of such a celebration regarding legal matters.
Related News
California judge criticizes Meta’s ‘attorney-client privilege’ swag hats and denies the company’s request to use AI for document examination