People manage to do that just fine all the time. All that's required is to write with the presumption that people might have different experiences. It's fine to suggest that some people are not living healthy lives if they don't have more social contact, and that it's a good idea to ask yourself why you might have a negative reaction to someone suggesting you have more, because everyone ought to understand their own needs and sometimes we don't.

What came across as insulting was that it is worded in a way that suggests this applies to everyone, and that people with different experiences just don't know how bad we have it. That generalization was unnecessary and took away from the overall point.

> when there are a e.g. million+ people in japan who don't leave their bedrooms and never grow up or grow out then there is obviously a new unsustainable pattern of anti-social behaviour

And the way to address that is to with the simple qualification of addressing specifically those who are unhappy with their situation, instead of suggesting that everyone who chooses to have most of their social contact online must necessarily be miserable.

I have no problems believing that lots of people are terribly lonely. At the same time I know that ironically a lot of people put a lot of energy into telling people who are not lonely to be more social. If only they'd spend that energy on people who want more contact (here's a simple one I wish more people would try: give eye contact to people you meet, and ask "how are you?" and actually wait for an answer when e.g. interacting with people in service jobs - you'll be astonished how quickly people will pour out built up emotions on near total strangers the moment someone shows the smallest sign of caring even if that sign is something as basic as actually waiting for an answer instead of just treating questions like that as meaningless greetings) instead of continuing to try to get people like me who are perfectly happy to be more social.