Is it possible that we may have a limited number of "connection points" (read: Dunbar's number) and we're now more connected to the people we *want* to rather than the people we *have* to?
If that were the case, it seems right to let us spend those points however we want (power to the people ✊) but what is our criteria for choosing communities to connect with?
Are we optimizing against friction? Have we chosen communities that support rather than challenge us?
Thus investing less in our immediate communities and finding remote tribes to join. We no longer need to get along with the neighbors we get, when we can find new 'neighbors' online.
These new, remote tribes may not challenge us in the ways that are useful for societies to thrive. Especially if we become apathetic to having difficult conversations.
Perhaps this explains the sentiment that, because of social media, we are both less and more connected? Perhaps more connected does not mean 'better' connected?
These and more annoying questions currently being spouted at an unwilling bartender in Manhattan's Lower East Side.
