Actually, i think that the term “community” is very very abused on-line.
People talk about communities when really they’re talking about users. Ideally paying users, more often users that someone has to keep engaged so that some other entity will give revenue (eg: youtube channels followers “communities”).
Take hacker news for example: we generally have zero saying in what the rules are, what is moderated fairly and what isn’t, what’s okay to post and what isn’t. We’re all strangers to each other and there isn’t an ounce of attachments between a random couple of users, again because we’re all strangers to each other. On average, we share very little with each other, except the fact that we all need oxygen to breathe and are somehow interested in technology.
That’s not how communities work. In true communities people can speak up, things can change, it’s rare to impossible for people to be banned.
And don’t get me wrong I’m only taking hacker news as an example but the same reasoning apply to most online “communities”.
Regarding the swap of real “communities”, I don’t think it’s entirely bad. I did it myself, because it’s effectively the only way to reach like minded people if you have interests outside what’s trending in your physical community.
> I think the widespread societal decay we are seeing probably relates to the dissolution of real communities as they've been replaced by the internet, huge geographical mobility and a decline in family, ethnic/national, and religious identity at the same time.
On this point i mostly disagree. Geographical mobility is good (where you were born is not a death sentence anymore), decline in family is okay (the old purely- and strictly-eterosexual family in a strictly religious form is essentially deprecated) ethnic/national identity is essentially bs and a source for unnecessary conflict (we’re all humans, it’s high time we start acting like that) and religion identity is the ultimate bs (there is no god).