technologyliberal

Social Media Giants: What They Know and What They Hide

USASunday, November 23, 2025
Advertisement

Meta, the company behind Facebook and Instagram, has been accused of hiding research that shows their platforms can harm mental health. This came to light in court documents from a lawsuit filed by U.S. school districts against Meta and other social media companies.

Project Mercury: Hidden Findings

In 2020, Meta conducted a study called "Project Mercury." They worked with a survey company to see what happens when people stop using Facebook and Instagram. The results were not good. People who took a break from these platforms felt:

  • Less depressed
  • Less anxious
  • Less lonely
  • Less inclined to compare themselves to others

Instead of sharing this information, Meta stopped the research. They said the study was flawed, but internal messages suggest they knew the findings were valid.

Criticism and Denial

Meta has faced criticism for not being honest about the risks of their products. They told Congress they couldn't say for sure if their platforms were harmful to teenage girls, even though their own research suggested otherwise.

Meta says they have been working to make their products safer for teens, but the court documents tell a different story.

Other Social Media Companies

The lawsuit also accuses other social media companies like TikTok, Google, and Snapchat of hiding the risks of their products. They are accused of:

  • Encouraging young children to use their platforms
  • Not doing enough to protect them from harmful content

TikTok, for example, sponsored a parent-teacher organization and then bragged about being able to influence them.

Meta's Response

Meta has denied these allegations. They say their safety measures are effective and that they have been working to protect teens for over a decade. However, the court documents suggest that Meta has known about these issues for years and has not done enough to address them.

Upcoming Hearing

A hearing on this case is scheduled for January 26 in a California court. The outcome of this case could have big implications for how social media companies operate and how they handle research about the effects of their products.

Actions