The answer is - I don't know. But here's the reality: Even if the children who are being *marketed* toward are not hungry, are there not children who are hungry? In essence, the priorities seem more akin to medical triage than looking out for those who have the most need.

Further, I'll ask you a question: Are any of these children going to have jobs that allow the use of technology to a degree that the entire investment is worthwhile? Can you demonstrate that with data?