Documents released as part of ongoing U.S. litigation reveal that Meta executives discussed strategies to discredit Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and author known for his work on the impact of social media and smartphones on youth mental health. The internal meeting notes indicate that the company sought to turn the academic community against Haidt prior to the publication of his 2024 bestseller, *The Anxious Generation*.
The minutes, dated March 8, 2023, appear to reference Curtiss Cobb, then Meta’s vice president of research. According to the records, Cobb’s objective was to provoke the academic community into rejecting Haidt’s work as a means of undermining his credibility. One entry describes the approach as a “below-the-line campaign” aimed at eliciting outrage among scholars without direct engagement. The notes also mention targeting specific academics to author critical analyses, citing Columbia University professor Andrew Gelman, a known critic of Haidt’s research.
Gelman responded publicly, stating he had not been contacted by Meta and condemned the reported plans. “We’re talking about some of the richest and most powerful people in the world conspiring to interfere with the open processes of science, journalism and the law,” he wrote in a blog post.
Haidt has been a prominent figure in raising concerns about the detrimental effects of digital media on young people’s mental health, a topic that has influenced legislative action internationally. His book played a role in prompting the Australian government to introduce age restrictions on social media use and reportedly informed similar policy discussions in the United Kingdom. Haidt expressed little surprise at the revelations, characterizing Meta’s efforts as attempts to suppress inconvenient truths. “The most damning revelation is the lengths that Meta was willing to go to manipulate the scientific process and the scientific community,” he said.
The court documents emerged from a multidistrict lawsuit filed by a coalition of U.S. school districts against Meta, alleging harm caused by the company’s platforms. The internal discussions acknowledged the prospect of litigation spotlighting Haidt’s arguments over the following two years.
It remains unclear whether Meta ultimately pursued or implemented the proposed tactics. Some members of the academic community have disputed Haidt’s conclusions, cautioning against overstating the evidence linking social media use to mental health declines. Candice Odgers, a psychology and informatics professor at the University of California, Irvine, wrote in a 2024 *Nature* article that assertions of widespread brain “rewiring” and a mental illness epidemic driven by digital technology are not supported by current scientific data.
Meta was contacted for comment but did not provide a response by the time of publication.