At first glance, the question may be subjective, but let me provide a specific example:
A story I'm self-editing takes place in a present-day small Virginia town. At present, the town is being haunted, in a sense, by a creature. A few weeks before the story took place, a curfew was initiated. After five'o'clock, everyone pretty much stays inside, locked in their storm cellars. In the first chapter of the story, the town is put under what could be considered martial law, where only law enforcement is permitted to leave. Now, they only really leave to eat, shower, go to the bathroom, etc. So, they haven't had much contact with other families.
With modern technology, looking back, I realize it may seem dated that everyone hasn't kept in touch via cell phone, email, FaceTime and facebook, especially since the narrator describes how close-knit the town used to be on multiple occasions. My question: Should I come up with an explanation for this phenomenon, or leave it to the readers to hypothesize on that themselves? In a general sense, how many questions should authors answer for the readers?
(Just to clarify, this is not an issue of a plot hole. The book is set in an area so remote that they don't have cable lines, fiber optic lines, etc, and their so far from the nearest cell tower they do not get reception. I'm asking whether or not this needs to be explained, or if the readers can infer that)
(And I did look around for the answer to this on writers, including this question When do I explain my created world scenario in a prologue vs. letting it unfold in the story?, and at a few websites including this post https://dailypost.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/too-much-detail/)