Cause and effect is reversed here. The trends leading to collapse of the family , neighborhoods and friendships predate facebook by at least 40 years. Bowling Alone describes the collapse covering the 80s & 90s, and the trends were 20-30 years mature by then.

▲

wpietri an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Your theory is that Facebook not only had no impact on that but could have done nothing to improve things?

That seems implausible to me. I think at best you could claim that cause and effect are quite tangled here.

	▲	tonymet 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I wouldn't say no impact, but a trailing impact. They understood the cultural changes demanding new ways for people to status signal and maintain connections with friends & family. That's what I mean about reversing cause and effect. There are larger causes (see my other comment below) that Facebook was innovative to take advantage of.

▲

Taikonerd an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

IIUC, Bowling Alone pointed the finger at TV. If you looked at time-use surveys in the 50s, versus when Putnam was writing in the late 90s, it looked like TV watching had eaten much of the time that used to be spent doing IRL social activities.

	▲	tonymet 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		TV was one factor, along with migration/ commuting, two-income households (and now divided households), and more generally that boomers were more individualistic, though he didn't explain why really. Those , and other factors are more influential than facebook. If anything, facebook helped remote friendships stay connected ( better than phone, letters).