There are little consequences when the pool of people you have access to is massive; and there remains no reason to become emotionally invested in a certain "core" of people, when you can easily jump to another if that "core" is not perfect.
This leads to a feedback loop that stunts relationship "depth."
Or further: when you have options, the default modus operandi is to not become completely invested into any single one -- you can always "jump" to another, and are always on the lookout for "greener pastures."
People have more options than they used to.
As much as I craved these "second level" (and even "first level") social relations, over the years I've become assimilated and contribute to the aforementioned feedback loop.
The "ills" of modern life have been exponentially increasing, but for the future generations they are simply "life."
In my opinion, it's good to have options. It's good not to have an X-or-bust social investment in a particular community because, as the 20th century has demonstrated, communities don't last forever. They change, they warp, they include, they exclude, they rise ,and they disappear. Societies are built to serve an instrumental function. When a society fails to provide that function in any meaningful way, people will vote with their feet when they can find another goal that suits their purposes. Even if such a goal is outside their current limits. This his been the way of humanity for thousands of years, so I don't understand why should we stop people from having options. I don't see a reason why people risk sinking with a ship they no longer have an interest being aboard.
Ideally one would have an arrangement that mimics the Viennese Cafe societies. Strict but fair rules on conduct, but ultimately leaving personal agency to oneself and one's confidants .
> We can conceive of all but the simplest societies as comprising three levels of social relations. The first level consists of highly personal or primary relations, notably the family. The third level contains relations inclusive of the whole population, notably the state. The second level comprises all intermediate relations, notably the local community, voluntary association, and occupational group.
Etc., the argument being that much of the socially important parts and ills of industrialization, urbanization, and the ensuing mass society are reducible to the dissolution of the second level and the transferral of its customary characteristics and behaviours (strong attachment, group identity, and so on) to the third.
But that’s mostly me channelling my history teachers, not original thought, so maybe someone who actually knows this stuff can say more.
Lest this be perceived as doomsaying, let me mention that Russian-language LiveJournal seemed to retain that small-town feel up until the very end (early 2010s) despite the considerable number of readers and commenters (thousands of readers for the most popular post on a slow day—much less than on Facebook, much more than you could ever possibly know). Possibly that’s because the number of writers (worth following) was much smaller, due to the higher effort required for long-form posts.
Again, people with more experience in older online communities should know more about this, as that was the only thriving one I experienced personally.