Authoritarian tools are good for authoritarians. They are not good for freedom.
You mean tools for propaganda? Such as radio, the media, and television? They are the most widely used tech for authoritarian regimes and/ or controlling influence.
China bans software such as Facebook due to the possibility of subversive ideologies, (and for other reasons) you’d think they’d allow it and use the data mining as a way to control / influence their population but that type of influence is probably far too subtle. I wouldn’t know for sure, just a guess.
And Facebook / YouTube / Podcasts have probably been far more pervasive in terms of disseminating authoritarian ideology than geo-tracking. As well as useful for anti-authoritarian ideologies to have access to social platforms.
I think the UK is the most viewed (CCTV) country in the world (could be wrong) - this is surveillance, and could be used to argue that it is authoritarian. However the CCTV is primarily used for our safety. Such Surveillance in the wrong hands is a tool for oppression. It depends on who is using the tech, not the tech itself.
For our young people, it is probably most helpful that they have good critical thinking skills to assess tech tools and how they are being used, to understand how they influence us, not just outright dismiss a tech tool as a tool of authoritarian repression because they can’t think beyond the simple concepts of of bad vs good.
Understanding authoritarianism, freedom, propaganda, the influence of media, the spoon feeding mechanisms of algorithms on SM platforms, and being able to think critically about these tools in light of that understanding is vital for young people.
Understanding how tech can be used to influence our behaviour isn’t too difficult if a young person can think for themselves. It’s the thinking part that is difficult, what’s that saying, “some people would rather die than think, many do”. Developing meta-cognitive skills for young people to self-assess: “is this tech influencing or informing the way that I think? And does that influence align with who I am or who I want to be?” These meta-cognitive skills aren’t beyond the ability of young adults. Indeed, some young adults have led social and political rebellions with precisely that thinking.
Anyway, the argument is essentially that the personal is political, that allowing geo-tracking teaches submissive behaviour which could be exploited. I would think that submissive behaviour is far more insidiously learned in our society. They way to fight the ideologies of authoritarianism are through teaching the freedoms of thinking for oneself and understanding and thinking about the insidious nature of the pervasive negative influences that can inform our thinking.