Networks are not social - they are mediums to carry what counters produce.
Groups of people can be social - but if they use less expressive way of communication (read: words typed as text without the body language) then these groups of people are less social, not more. And uttering a phrase "social network" thousand times will not change this reality.
Are books less expressive than in-person communication? I'd say they're differently expressive.
But of course, if somebody doesn't want to think on it because I offended his beloved toy for communicating, he will tend to argue endlessly instead. That's one of the most basic human behaviors: everyone is justifying what he's spending time on.
There are many ways to socialize. I prefer some, but other people have vastly different preferences. If you're connecting with someone else on a personal level, I don't see how that's not social.
It wasn't so long ago that anything computer-related was dismissed as imaginary bits floating around a computer, with no lasting impact on life. It also wasn't so long ago that anything internet-related was dismissed as artificial, with no impact on real life.
You would think we'd realize by now that there's nothing artificial about the sort of connection and communication that we practice over the internet.
Facebook isn't the thing preventing people from communicating "in real life" - people haven't been chatting on buses for decades, long before the invention of the internet. If anything, the iPod has done more to damage the social fabric of urban areas than smartphones.
It is the curse of the city - never before has mankind lived in a denser conglomeration of his/her peers, yet been more alone. To blame this on technology instead of sociology seems misguided.