Meta's Alleged 'Whisper Strategy' Against Academic Jonathan Haidt Raises AI Ethics Concerns

Recent court filings have unveiled a discussion within Meta in 2023 regarding a “Whisper strategy” aimed at discrediting academic Jonathan Haidt, a prominent critic of social media's impact on youth mental health. This revelation has provoked a strong backlash from academics, including many who have previously critiqued Haidt's work, underscoring significant concerns about corporate influence and ethical conduct in public discourse.

What happened

According to The Verge, court filings in California last month revealed that Meta employees discussed a “Whisper strategy” in 2023 to “turn academics against Haidt” ahead of his bestselling book, The Anxious Generation. Haidt's work posits that social media and smartphones are detrimental to teens' mental health. The proposed strategy included a “Below-the-line campaign” and an idea to “Get Gellman to write a take-down piece,” possibly referencing Columbia University professor Andrew Gelman, who had previously critiqued Haidt.

It remains unclear whether Meta ever implemented this strategy. However, the disclosure has generated considerable controversy. Several academics, including prominent psychology professor Candice Odgers and Cornell University communication professor danah boyd, have publicly stated they were never approached or paid by Meta to critique Haidt’s work. Odgers, who studies tech's effects on teens, wrote on Substack that her views are “grounded in the years of research I’ve done on this topic.” danah boyd stated, “I think the company is unethical to the core,” while affirming her independent research on teens and social media.

Andrew Gelman, despite previously critiquing Haidt's methods, denounced Meta's private discussions, telling The Verge, “I think it’s horrible for Haidt that this happened to him.” Gelman confirmed he has never been contacted by Meta regarding Haidt, though he received a “no-strings-attached donation” for research from the company in 2016, unrelated to social media's impact on teen health. Chris Ferguson, a Stetson University psychology professor, called the idea of a “whisper campaign” against any scholar “gross,” noting he receives no funding from tech companies.

Haidt, in a statement to The Verge, welcomed scientific debate but criticized Meta's alleged plan as a tactic “straight out of the Big Tobacco playbook,” which he believes should concern anyone invested in scientific integrity and children's well-being. Meta declined to comment on the matter. The court documents emerged from consolidated lawsuits against Meta and other social media companies, alleging they misled the public about safety risks to teens. Meta has recently faced substantial legal defeats and settled claims from state attorneys general for $17.1 billion, according to The Verge.

Why it matters for security and policy teams

This incident, whether the strategy was executed or not, serves as a stark illustration of the ethical and reputational hazards inherent in attempting to manipulate public discourse. For security and policy teams within small companies, particularly those navigating the complexities of AI governance and public relations, it highlights critical vulnerabilities. The alleged “Whisper strategy” exemplifies a corporate approach that prioritizes narrative control over transparent engagement, risking severe damage to trust and credibility when exposed. In an era where AI can amplify messages and create content at scale, the potential for such tactics to be executed by smaller entities, perhaps inadvertently, is a significant concern. Policies must be robust enough to prevent any form of astroturfing or covert influence, ensuring that AI tools are used to enhance genuine communication, not to fabricate consensus or discredit legitimate critique. The backlash from academics, many of whom are themselves critical of Haidt, demonstrates that even an aligned audience will condemn perceived unethical behavior, underscoring the universal expectation for integrity in public and scientific discourse. Upholding ethical AI use and transparent corporate communication is not merely a moral imperative but a strategic necessity to mitigate reputational risk and maintain public trust.

What to do this week

1. Review and update your company's internal guidelines for public relations, marketing, and external communications to explicitly prohibit any tactics that could be perceived as covert influence or manipulation of public discourse.
2. Implement clear ethical policies for the use of AI in content generation, social media management, and public outreach, ensuring that AI tools are employed to support transparent, factual communication rather than to create misleading narratives or discredit critics.
3. Conduct a brief internal audit of any existing or past collaborations with external experts, researchers, or public figures to ensure all interactions were fully disclosed, free of undue influence, and aligned with your company's ethical standards.

Sources

• Meta discussed attacking Jonathan Haidt — now even his haters are annoyed — The Verge - Policy