There's a long history of people choosing to live solitary lives, and as far as I can tell there's no good reason to assume that they made the wrong choice. Sure, most people might need real social contact, but humans are a varied bunch. Let's accept or maybe even celebrate this, even while still keeping in mind that the more 'deviant' a behavior is, the higher the chance is that it's unhealthy.
I'd never recommend a random person shut themselves in and replace real human contact with a digital version, because on average, it's probably not a good thing. But I try my best to also not impose what is 'normal' on them, because for all I know they're one of the odd ones out.
(I am one of those odd ones, to an extent, and trying to conform to the 'healthy mean' has had some bad consequences.)
I'm actually astounded by how many people replying seem to reject this idea entirely. I fear they may have eschewed real world relationships for so long that they haven't really got any, don't remember the difference, and use online "relationships" to fill the void as best they can.
Sure, you can have relationships online. But it's never the same as real world relationships. Not even close. The satisfaction I get from being with my wife, my family, and my friends, is so, so, so much greater than any interaction I've had online with a person I've never met. Not remotely comparable.
That the article is talking about a "karma whore" is telling. That title would imply that the main benefit of the online "community" is getting points, not having relationships. It's just a silly Internet game with short, rapid dopamine feedback loops. Social media, with its likes and upvotes, hardly seems like actual social activity.