Recent judicial documents in the state of California have revealed internal trends at Meta in 2023, which included the discussion of a secret strategy referred to as the "Whisper strategy," aimed at influencing public opinion against researcher Jonathan Haidt, one of the most prominent critics of the impact of social media platforms on the mental health of teenagers.
Background of the academic conflict
Jonathan Haidt is a central figure in the ongoing debate over the impact of smartphones and social media platforms on youth, especially after the release of his book "The Anxious Generation." Haidt has consistently linked the decline in adolescent mental health to the intensive use of these technologies, which prompted Meta—according to the documents—to consider counter-campaigns aimed at pushing other academics to criticize his research.
Academic reactions
These leaks have sparked widespread dissatisfaction in academic circles, even among researchers who disagree with Haidt on his scientific conclusions. A number of academics, such as Candice Odgers and danah boyd, emphasized that their criticisms of Haidt's research stem from completely independent scientific convictions, stressing that there was no coordination with Meta. Other researchers, such as Andrew Gelman and Chris Ferguson, also denounced the "whisper campaign" style, describing it as an unethical practice that harms the integrity of scientific research.
What does this mean for users and researchers?
This incident puts Meta in a critical position, as its methods are being compared to the "tobacco industry playbook" in an attempt to distort scientific debate. For users and those interested in tech policy, this news raises fundamental questions about:
- Integrity of public debate: The extent to which major tech companies intervene in directing scientific research that affects their business model.
- Independence of scientific research: The importance of separating institutional funding from research findings related to user safety.
- Transparency: The necessity for companies to be part of the public dialogue openly and directly instead of resorting to behind-the-scenes strategies.
For his part, Haidt emphasized that these practices should concern everyone who cares about children's safety and the integrity of science, noting that genuine scientific criticism contributes to the development of research, while directed campaigns aim to mislead public opinion.