Years after the revelations that exploded with the documents brought to light by Frances Haugen, a new series of materials obtained by Reuters adds another piece to the mosaic of behaviors contested in Meta. This time there is one in the center Facebook internal search started in 2020, when the social giant was still struggling with the reputation crisis following Cambridge Analytica.
According to what emerges from the documents filed in the district court of Northern California, as part of the lawsuit brought by the law firm Motley Rice on behalf of several American schools, Meta would have deliberately stopped a study that showed a causal link between the use of Facebook and a worsening of users’ mental health.
The project had a code name: “Project Mercury”. Meta scientists, in collaboration with the analysis company Nielsen, had monitored a group of users who had chosen to “deactivate” Facebook for a period of time. And, as internal documents report, those who left the platform for a week reported a net reduction in anxiety, depression, loneliness and social comparison.
An uncomfortable conclusion, which according to the procedural documents led Meta to stop the searchinternally claiming that those data were contaminated by the “already existing media narrative” on the negative role of social media.
But in internal messages cited in the documents, at least one researcher openly defended the validity of the findings:
The Nielsen study shows a causal impact on social comparison.
Another employee made an even harsher comparison, arguing that withholding that data was reminiscent of the tobacco industry which, despite knowing the harmfulness of cigarettes, hid the evidence from the public.
Meta’s answers and the contradictions that emerged
Behind the closed doors of the company, according to the documents, Meta openly discussed the value of the results of “Project Mercury”. But on the outside, the behavior would have been the opposite. Papers filed with the court allege that Meta reportedly told Congress that it did not have the tools to understand whether its products could harm teenage girlsan answer that today, in light of these revelations, sounds profoundly contradictory.
Spokesman Andy Stone, in a statement sent to Reuters, rejected all accusations, claiming that the study was suspended solely for fallacious methodology and reiterating that the company would work “for over a decade” to improve safety features aimed at young people.
Meta also challenged the plaintiffs’ decision to make the internal documents public, arguing that their request was “too broad.” A hearing to discuss the material is set for January 26th.
Beyond internal Facebook research
“Project Mercury” is just one of the numerous elements contained in the long dossier filed by Motley Rice. The accusations leveled against Meta, Google, TikTok and Snapchat are very serious: according to the plaintiffs, the companies have hidden the risks of their own products from parents, teachers and userswhile at the same time encouraging growth in use among younger people.
Among the most serious disputes, the documents report that Meta would have planned intentionally ineffective youth safety featuresgoing so far as to prevent tests that could have reduced adolescent engagement. Meta would also have consciously accepted that optimizing its algorithms to increase teenagers’ engagement meant also exposing them to more harmful contentbut he would have proceeded anyway. The fight against online predators would have been slowed down for years so as not to hinder the growth of the platform, while the security staff would have been pushed to justify inaction.
In a 2021 message, Mark Zuckerberg he would have stated that he could not indicate the safety of minors as his top priority, because he was concentrated on other fronts, in particular the development of the metaverse. The documents also report alleged pressure to prevent the division then led by Nick Clegg from obtaining more funds to allocate to child safety.
The accusations against other social networks: the TikTok case and the role of the National PTA
In the file, TikTok is accused of having sponsored the National PTAa nonprofit dedicated to families and children, then boasts internally of its ability to influence public positions. According to the documents, the social network’s executives stated that the association would be ready “to do anything” in the following months, including press releases and statements from the CEO defending the security of the platform.
Google and Snapchat, however, reportedly avoided immediately commenting on the allegations. Meta rejects everything: according to Stone, the material would be built on extrapolated quotes and distorted opinions, while the safety functions for teenagers would be “extensive and effective”. The company denies any attempt at a cover-up and claims the lawsuit is providing a misleading portrayal of its work.
In any case, the legal battle promises to be long and complex. And the heart of the dispute continues to be the same: How much did the social giants really know about the effects of their platforms?And how many times have they kept it quiet?
