I’ve been thinking about a recent New York Times investigative report on the influence and infiltration of social media and tech companies into U.S. schools, called “Teachers Are Going to Hate It’: How Social Media Apps Hooked Teens at School” (June 4, 2026).
In it, the Times reports it accessed documents from lawsuits filed by school districts showing that Meta, TikTok, and even Google and Apple have been heavily promoting their products inside U.S. schools. This is a piece worth reading, which reports that:
- Snapchat sent notifications to students during school hours, encouraging them to post what was going on in their classrooms
- Instagram paid “teen ambassadors” to hand out Instagram hats, stickers, and other swag at school
- Some of the largest social media companies offer online safety training programs for parents and families
- The National PTA solicited funds from Snap to place a safety program in schools
All this is damning for tech companies, as well as the schools and parents that accepted these programs in their schools. So my question is why all the parties involved — parents, school administrators, tech companies — thought some of these actions were acceptable. Why was the ground fertile for Meta, TikTok, Discord, and Snap to show up in schools and target students and parents?
We’ve seen this before: Channel One
Let’s look to history for a moment. Remember Channel One? It launched in the 1990s, offering free TVs and satellite dishes (which schools really wanted) in exchange for broadcasting a daily, 12-minute news-for-kids video program in schools that contained two minutes of ads for teen-targeted products.
A lot of parents were ticked off. They believed that schools shouldn’t be used as marketing channels for corporations’ products.
What is now the advocacy organization Fairplay for Kids launched a big campaign speaking out against Channel One’s infiltration into schools. Given that Channel One’s broadcasts weren’t especially valuable for students, some of the largest school districts saw this as a quid pro quo (which it was) and banned the broadcast. Without participating schools and a besmirched name, Channel One died a very slow death, finally closing up in 2018.
The Channel One debacle shows that for many years, it’s been a norm in schools that advertising and marketing by national corporations has no place in schools, and especially if their products may be harmful to students.
Do we still believe that?
I think we do, and I think parents do – which is why 1,400 school districts and parents are suing these companies, according to the New York Times article.
What happens when Big Tech – or any corporation – is in schools
I want to dissect the outrage toward Channel One and these big tech companies a bit more, because some people are asking “Why are corporations funding or helping schools a problem?” We’re very used to corporations’ logos appearing everywhere, from TV ads to sponsorship posters to nonprofit websites – what’s the big deal?
When schools accept corporations’ pay-to-play “programs” in exchange for equipment like Chromebooks and iPads, T-shirt giveaways, and logo placement from tech and social media companies, they sell students’ loyalty to those companies. That is, the companies build trust and affinity with students, which creates long-term customers for them. Because the tech companies’ measures of success are the number of laptops or tablets deployed and minutes spent on social media or gaming platforms, these companies are building their profitable futures. Brand loyalty means sustained profit.
Hooking them when they’re young – as with so many harmful products and substances – means these corporations have bought long-term customers.
How tech corporations got into schools
How this all happened was more – and less – complicated than it looks.
Here are some parties we could blame and some conditions that made all this possible.
1. We could blame schools for saying yes to Big Tech programs and discounts… maybe. Schools wanted computers and tablets at school, which they thought could aid in learning and improve computer literacy. But due to budget constraints, the immediate needs around COVID, and a lack of school digital literacy resources, they needed help to get them. They got Chromebooks and iPads from Apple and Google. Big Tech was there for them and everyone was excited.
2. We could blame parents and PTAs for saying yes to Big Tech programs. In my many conversations with parents, I have felt their palpable desperation for digital literacy education. Parents probably felt like they had to accept the tech companies’ presentations and programs because they needed something – anything – to help with the fear and lack of competence they felt in the face of parenting around tech. Meta, TikTok, and Discord were right there with free programs due to their huge marketing budgets and PTA sponsorships.
(What’s sad is that there were other programs waiting for them. Extremely effective media-literacy nonprofits would have gladly provided excellent services and even devices, but they didn’t have the budgets to compete with Big Tech.)
Parents did what was easiest because they have too much other stuff to do.
3. We could blame tech companies for trying to improve their public profiles and using schools to do it. Some tech companies felt the ground and could tell parents were feeling worried. So they sent in nice, well-intentioned representatives saying “Here’s more tech, here’s more swag, here’s a ‘helpful’ program.” It made them look better.
For example, Meta’s Screen Smart: These presentations for parents (facilitated by PTAs) were supposed to teach kids and parents how to use Instagram safely, with their Instagram Teen Accounts, which Meta keeps promoting as being a safer alternative (that kids can get around easily). But really, they put the responsibility on parents and the program functioned as a publicity move.
And there sure was a lot of YouTube being watched on those Chromebooks: Google does own YouTube, after all.
Using all three of these avenues, the tech companies created a circular problem, as big corporations that lack integrity often do: They needed to keep students using their products long-term and keep kids (and parents) scrolling through their feeds to stay in business. The companies framed the very serious problems with their platforms (predators, mental health-destroying content, platforms that create dependency) as something parents had control over – and let parents blame themselves for what happens to their kids online. Then the tech companies swooped in with tech presentations, programs, parent guides, and giveaways to “help” parents with this profound responsibility.
In the climate-change and environmental activism space, it’s called “greenwashing”: Make it look like the corporation is giving back, and they can hide their sins that created the initial problem.
Imagine parents going home to their kids after one of these presentations and saying “A tobacco company came to teach us how to help you smoke safely.” But that’s a version of what happened with some of these programs.
Companies with a vested interest in kids’ and parents’ use of their products shouldn’t be the ones educating families about using their products safely.
To allow corporate marketing in schools, one value was exploited: Trust. Parents trust schools. Schools trusted tech companies. Tech companies benefited from that trust.
But we can’t stand for it anymore.
We can keep Big Tech out of schools
Now it seems popular for parents and the general public to be hot under the collar about the harms of social media and too many screens in schools. The need has become less intense, and our eyes are now clear.
As with Big Pharma and Big Tobacco, and automobile safety, parents started getting mad about social media creating addictive behaviors in their kids, hurting their kids, even killing their kids.
It doesn’t have to be this way, and many parents and schools are realizing it.
So now, Meta and other tech companies can try to run, but they can’t hide behind PR statements, CEO testimonies to Congress or courts, or “safety” features implemented in lieu of meaningful platform changes. All they really can do is to admit their imperfections, take the hit, and make their platforms better, less intrusive, and safer for kids. (See my Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg).
We can see that schools shouldn’t become marketing channels for technology companies. We can get Big Tech out of schools and PTAs — and keep it out.
Together we can and should:
- Expand media literacy now. Every school should have a K-12 media literacy curriculum in place (and only some states mandate it now). Until that happens — and we shouldn’t hold our breath — parents have to stop blaming themselves and start giving their kids the underlying, foundational habits and knowledge they need to keep themselves safe, healthy, and smart online. Every parent should have tools to teach their kids these crucial skills, too. The Social Media Driver’s License is a place to start.
- Resist corporate infiltration of the educational system. Parent-teacher associations, school boards, and administrators make their own choices and do not have to accept or use corporate programs. I hope parents and teachers will keep questioning these choices and thinking for themselves.
- Fund independent nonprofits and consultants with years of experience to deliver media literacy programs for parents, not the companies perpetuating the harm. CyberWise, Screen Sanity, and Ready Set Screen are starting points.
- Support policy pushes for platform improvements and corporate regulations. Last, we should applaud and support the work of the policy advocates, like Fairplay for Kids, who speak out and demand we fix this debacle. Change will be slow and not in time for today’s 13 year olds, but if we rally behind these advocates, it will happen.
It’s our job to snap out of this strange and normalized corporate control, identify the conditions that make it possible, and break free so our kids and teens can think clearly, see tech companies’ motivations for what they are, and become independent, empowered adults.
I want to know your thoughts on this: Am I missing something? And are there educational programs or media literacy organizations you have had great experiences with?
Jennifer Berger is the Founder and Executive Director of Ready Set Screen.
Leave a Reply