[lelanthran]

> If a teacher could not figure out how to communicate with a kid without routing those communications through Facebook servers, I would kindly teach them how e-mail, matrix, or other neutral internet protocols work.

I get the feeling that your worldview is extremely limited, and you have not experienced the world of kids.

We choose schools based on how successful their graduates are. The more CEOs, doctors, etc that a school produced means that that school is more successful.

Once the school is chosen, you adhere to their rules. For my kids, some of those rules included online-only stuff. Sure, I could send my kids to a shittier school, but I don't want to do that.

[lrvick]

Online only is fine. The internet is not the problem. Forcing kids to accept data sharing license agreements with private third party companies with a history of abusing that data to get education at a public institution... is the problem.

It should not even be legal to do this and IMO parents in your situation should consider forming student privacy advocacy groups and legal funds demanding students not be discriminated against over legitimate privacy concerns involving third party private companies. I know I will if I am the parent of a kid in that situation and a teacher at the best school for them does not comply with polite help migrating to more accessible solutions.

Force the schools to self host, and use open source software. This is the norm at many major academic institutions in Europe. The US is just way behind because virtually no one is fighting for student privacy here... because most parents don't care about their own privacy so why would they care about that of their child?

[rglullis]

> The more CEOs, doctors, etc that a school produced means that that school is more successful.

Or it means that the elites managed to self-select themselves around that particular school.