The article clearly states that the connections you mention don't make up a community:
> Many praise the myriad benefits that smartphones and social media are said to bring; online connection can give a person a sense of “community,” we are told. We can find new friends, discover just about any idea imaginable, network, and even date through our phones. We can video chat with hundreds of people simultaneously from far-flung locations. We can pursue learning largely untethered from any physical space. Based on all of this, it would be easy to assume that place doesn’t matter.
> I disagree. Physical place actually matters far more than we realize, especially as our lives become ever more placeless.
The people selling this idea of "online community" figured out that if they become the middleman for all of our personal interactions that they can charge us for each one or charge someone else for access to us. One of the reasons Instagram is so horrifying to me is that it takes something like "personal messages" and puts Instagram front and center in controlling whose message you see and at what time, and they use that to foster fake relationships with salespeople making marketing videos in their kitchens.
The article indeed makes that argument. But from a functional perspective it just isn't true, virtual communities have replaced physical ones.
I also think it sells short the attractiveness of these digital communities. A digital community can be something where you spend many hours a day, with the same people, where the connections are just as important as your connections in real life. It isn't just dating apps, Facebook and YouTube.
Of course what the article wants to say that they are different, which is obviously true and I do absolutely agree that digital communities can be very detrimental and aren't a replacement with the necessary benefits.
> where the connections are just as important as your connections in real life
That's the problem statement: these degenerate images of real communities are attractive and they become important despite being incomplete and ultimately crippling.
It's exactly analogous to junk food which is attractive and which becomes "important" to the people addicted to it even as it slowly destroys their health.
I strongly disagree that online spaces can't be fulfilling. A private, invite-only discord server with a couple layers of core-member regulars, friends-of-friends, and miscellaneous passerby is a compelling substitute for joining something like the Oddfellows or Masons. In the server I hang out in, 2 people have met their spouses, a handful formed romantic relationships, and most everyone has made at least a few lasting friendships.
If that's "degenerate", what's your definition of a meaningful social space?
It sounds like you and your friends run a very nice online neighborhood, that's terrific and I don't mean to detract from that.
I'm pointing out the enormous difference in bandwidth between online and in-person interaction. It's difficult even to estimate the orders of magnitude!
Online interaction can be a healthy adjunct to a healthy social life. It's when online interaction replaces in-person interaction that we evidently get a mental health crisis.
> what's your definition of a meaningful social space?
Thanks for asking. I would start with Christopher Alexander's "Pattern Language" et. al.[1] and add in applied ecology (i.e. Permaculture, Greenway[2])
The idea being if the neighborhood is comfortable and full of life the meaningful social relations should hopefully follow. (And if not, at least you're comfortable and well-fed and not causing anybody any problems.)
> Many praise the myriad benefits that smartphones and social media are said to bring; online connection can give a person a sense of “community,” we are told. We can find new friends, discover just about any idea imaginable, network, and even date through our phones. We can video chat with hundreds of people simultaneously from far-flung locations. We can pursue learning largely untethered from any physical space. Based on all of this, it would be easy to assume that place doesn’t matter.
> I disagree. Physical place actually matters far more than we realize, especially as our lives become ever more placeless.