Meta Discussed 'Whisper Strategy' to Discredit Social Media Critic Jonathan Haidt, Files Show (theguardian.com) 32
The Guardian reports:
Meta staff discussed deploying a "whisper strategy" to undermine the influential US academic whose work has inspired a global social media crackdown, according to court documents. Employees at the parent group of Facebook and Instagram sought to discredit Jonathan Haidt, the social psychologist and author of The Anxious Generation, a book that helped tip the debate about online safety towards more stringent measures such as the under-16 ban in Australia.
Minutes of internal meetings contained in a recent legal filing in the US showed that staff discussed how to "get the academic community to disavow Haidt". They appear in a document titled "Well-being Meeting Sound-check Notes", which refers to discussions of how Meta could "turn other academics against Haidt" and to a "whisper strategy" aimed at achieving that goal. It also mentions "debunking" his work. Minutes from a meeting on 8 March 2023 mention "Curtiss", an apparent reference to Meta's then vice-president of research, Curtiss Cobb. It states: "Curtiss's goal for this work: how do we get the academic community to disavow Haidt. Can't co-opt them, so how do we enrage them ... so the media finds him not credible."
It then adds: "Not thinking about this as a loud strategy. A below-the-line campaign...."
The minutes were produced before Haidt published his book in 2024 and discuss responding to a Substack post written by the academic in which he reviews "a bunch of articles".
"It is not clear whether Meta acted on the ideas outlined in the minutes."
Minutes of internal meetings contained in a recent legal filing in the US showed that staff discussed how to "get the academic community to disavow Haidt". They appear in a document titled "Well-being Meeting Sound-check Notes", which refers to discussions of how Meta could "turn other academics against Haidt" and to a "whisper strategy" aimed at achieving that goal. It also mentions "debunking" his work. Minutes from a meeting on 8 March 2023 mention "Curtiss", an apparent reference to Meta's then vice-president of research, Curtiss Cobb. It states: "Curtiss's goal for this work: how do we get the academic community to disavow Haidt. Can't co-opt them, so how do we enrage them ... so the media finds him not credible."
It then adds: "Not thinking about this as a loud strategy. A below-the-line campaign...."
The minutes were produced before Haidt published his book in 2024 and discuss responding to a Substack post written by the academic in which he reviews "a bunch of articles".
"It is not clear whether Meta acted on the ideas outlined in the minutes."
Reminds Me Of The eBay Incident (Score:5, Insightful)
eBay blogger harassment and $56m settlement. [bbc.com]
Re: Reminds Me Of The eBay Incident (Score:1)
Also reminds me of the release of Careless People last year (the one where Facebook got a gag order on the author so she can't talk about her own book)... it seemed you couldn't talk about the company's complicity in, for instance, the Malaysian genocide without someone trying to paint the author as morally compromised by association.
Newspeak (Score:5, Interesting)
Meta leveraging decades of experience of oppressive regimes and dictators and experts of propaganda...
How has it become a sad reality that everyone is basically using 1984 like an instruction manual to suppress dissenting ideas and opinions?
Re: (Score:3)
everyone is basically using 1984 like an instruction manual to suppress dissenting ideas and opinions?
Because 1984 was just copying what people were already doing.
Streisand Effect (Score:4, Insightful)
It's usually far better (from the insidious side's point of view) to either ignore it completely or co-opt the messenger.
Re: Streisand Effect (Score:2)
If you want to go down a rabbit hole here... (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't get mad at Meta, look into how the Supreme Court starting with Sullivan vs New York Times has created a legal environment where public figures like Haidt effectively have almost no recourse to defamation protection unless it is in a very narrow window of extremely blunt bad behavior.
Take a good model like Opus and go deep on this on how far you can get away with talking shit about a public figure so long as you aren't being highly specific about acts and how this plays with brandenburg to create an en
Re:If you want to go down a rabbit hole here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get mad at Meta, look into how the Supreme Court starting with Sullivan vs New York Times has created a legal environment where public figures like Haidt effectively have almost no recourse to defamation protection unless it is in a very narrow window of extremely blunt bad behavior.
It's the cost of a viable and vigorous free press. If it is easier to sue an win a defamation suit, it becomes a powerful tool to stifle reporting. It's also important to people who post on public forums because lowered protection cultured result in expensive court cases for them as well.
In Meta's case, if they actually did it then that may reach the actual malice level, depending on what was said, but IANAL so who knows?
Where are the level headed realists? (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on guys, this is your moment! Come tell us how everything isn't a conspiracy, and the corporations aren't all out to get us!
This is how businesspeople behave all the time. Virtually all of them see us as a lesser species to be manipulated and milked for profit. Advertising is manipulation of your emotional state to cause you to make decisions you'll regret. The whole business world runs on gaslighting you, the only difference between this and that is degree. It's a war for your wallet, and your security and sanity are the casualties.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Where are the level headed realists? (Score:5, Insightful)
The public worships capitalism and sociopathy because capitalists and sociopaths tell them to, the internet is merely a supercharger.
Speak up, Hypocrite (Score:4, Insightful)
So, social media execs want to be “whisper” quiet defending every reason to abuse minors with digital drug addiction?
Tell them to speak loudly and clearly into the microphone and describe exactly why they don’t dare let their own children eat their own dog food, flavored with hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And the politicians YOU support, the party you support, molests those children.
Re:Speak up, Hypocrite. (Score:1)
Actual hypocrisy:
An actual ubiquitous long term presence in Epstein files, including island visits? Democrat Billionaire Reid Hoffman
Lead funder of Trump “rape” accusations and lawsuits by his stooge? Democrat Billionaire Reid Hoffman
Claimed was “raped” by a half a dozen prominent men? Hoffman’s stooge
Falsely claimed Hoffman didn’t fund her Trump lawsuit? Hoffman’s stooge
Failed to release significant Epstein files? Joe “Autopen” Biden
Top prominent politi
Cool strategy (Score:5, Interesting)
So Johnny Depp hired a PR company (Score:5, Interesting)
The PR company had a bunch of people go around social media pretending to be people saying bad things about Depp's ex.
It created a eating frenzy and the right wing picked it up and ran with it.
The head of the PR company in internal emails expressed... Let's just call it concern about how easy it was to turn the entire public against somebody with a handful social media posts that weren't even automated.
The point is it's really easy to set the public off. Especially these days when if a cooler head shows up and tells everyone to calm down they get dismissed as one of them Washington insider expert scientist types...
Re: (Score:2)
Do please enumerate where Hiltzik Strategies [hstrategies.com] was hired to “go after his ex” ?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
In other words you can produce no evidence “Johnny Depp hired a PR company
Re: (Score:2)
See how they got you? (Score:2, Troll)
Both Depp and his ex are pretty terrible people by all accounts but his publicist was better than her publicist and so you're only focused on what they want you to be focused on. Meanwhile why the fuck would you even give a shit about any of this in the first place?
Do you have enough money in the bank account? Have you got enough retirement savings that you don't need to go back to work when you can't anymore? How
It is not clear whether Meta acted on the ideas : (Score:3)
Shocking (Score:5, Informative)
Not justifying it or defending it. Just saying that it should come as absolutely no surprise.
Re: Shocking (Score:1)
Window into Meta (Score:5, Informative)
I actually took the time to read through the legal PDF, it's interesting to see in their minutes/notes, there's very little about finding legit arguments, research, etc. to counter Haidt's points - it's just all about 'messaging', PR, image, and plan for discrediting him, typical corporate behavior. While I don't think those of us in slashdot crowd have any love for Meta, for others who may think Facebook is just a harmless distraction, the minutes are pretty revealing when it comes to their culture/mindset. Hint: they care only about money and numbers (shocking I know!!!)
The book, while generally well received, has its share of critics regarding some of his assumptions/conclusions. I have not read it, but know it's been referenced a lot in education and academia. They could have probably actually tried to debate the book, but decided of course to take the low, and dirty, road.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup they know they don't have the intelligence, ability or skills to research and pose a counter-argument. It's just PR and image.
The word you're looking for... (Score:3)
is 'conspiracy' .