While I think the heart of the message is good, I always get lost in the words when someone makes a very blatantly black/white read on the world. Online socializing isn’t all bad, but there’s a fundamental difference between socializing in the comment section of a youtube video and with someone you regularly voice chat with. I think it’s likely important for people to recognize the difference between these two, and that both of these sit on a few axes through which we can measure social dynamics. How closely you know the person you are talking to, what information you are provided (purely text, text + emojis, photos, audio, never muted mic, video, etc.), how much it’s a conversation vs. parasocial, what you discuss with the individual (restricted subjects? purely intellectual? emotional? aspects of your lives?), whether you have shared connections/friends/family/etc, and other dimensions which all control the depth at which a bond can be formed.

This compression of the complexity of life often leads to poor or bad takes on issues, such as Hillary’s own self-admitted demonizing of violence in media as a reason for social disconnect in America. There are plenty of problems with violence in media, just as there are with excessive video gaming, but neither are the sole cause behind social disconnect or mass shooters. Just like messages from dare which compress down to “drugs bad”, you end up losing credibility and pushing people away by simplifying issues rather than taking on their complexity. While this is common in politics, and often needed in politics as a shield to fight off people who are uninterested in investing the time/energy into the nuance and due to real concerns of the amount of time you get to spend talking on an issue or with someone, when you have the space of an article or a book it does you no credit.

Ultimately I think a good issue is highlighted in this article, and one we’ve been seen struggling quite a bit with over the past decade of increasing toxicity online and a culture which has become polarized by politics. The solutions presented, however, seem to ignore the reality of our current life and those going forward - people are unlikely to cast technology aside in order to go to church to ‘enrich’ themselves. They’ve been leaving church because they have alternatives which are more appealing. The key is to redesign the technology we use to create spaces which allow for greater interpersonal connection - in fact, we’re already seeing a lot of people (such as this website) looking to colonize this space with alternatives. There’s a reason that the most successful online VR platforms are centered around quite literally just socializing with people and that places like tiktok where conversations can happen asynchronously through videos directed at each other and where people can pour their heart and soul into are popular right now. Discord servers and smaller communities where folks can get to know each other and form community are becoming increasingly desired because people want a digital alternative as well, not necessarily in spite of and it’s driven by many factors. Getting people to go out in person can be encouraged in certain situations and I think improving economic conditions such as the number of hours worked in order to make a living pay can drastically help with this, but ultimately we need to be working all the levers at the same time, not compressing our view down to a single lever because it’s easier or it’s the one we’ve decided is “most important.”