Compare and contrast:
The usual industry and education narrative about cell phones, social media, and digital technology generally is that they build community, foster communication, and increase efficiency, thus improving our lives. Mark Zuckerberg’s recent reformulation of Facebook’s mission statement is typical: the company aims to “give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.” Without their phones, most of my students initially felt lost, disoriented, frustrated, and even frightened. That seemed to support the industry narrative: look how disconnected and lonely you’ll be without our technology. But after just two weeks, the majority began to think that their cell phones were in fact limiting their relationships with other people, compromising their own lives, and somehow cutting them off from the “real” world.
David Kaye, the United Nation’s special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, has described the ongoing shutdown as a “communications siege” and “collective punishment without even the allegation of an underlying offense.”
Within security theory we would see this as an authorization dilemma.
In the first story the teacher clearly is an authority over students, although she does admit to asking for their permission before taking away their Internet.
In the second story the government clearly also is an authority over citizens, however that permission step becomes the rub. What if the citizens object to their government?
In either case, it’s interesting to see how the teacher builds a case that Internet removal generates a lot of fear and anxiety at first, before shifting to a realization it may be even more harmful to have it restored.
Self-determination is one issue, obviously needing to be kept in the debate, yet the other much more interesting situation here is that shutdowns could have a positive effect (e.g. especially if Facebook is being used by anyone, as it tends to be the tool of dictatorship, mass atrocities and destruction of self-determination).