This will depend on who’s using what yardstick, won’t it, and on what sort of computer time. There’s not only one kind. And it depends on what you call social. After all, how different is this very post from writing a letter, really? I seem to recall no one used to worry about those. At least we get to work our minds a bit.
And what about those who for very good reason have a hard time getting out of the house, if they can at all? Would you begrudge them that?
Well, since most of my time away from the keyboard wouldn’t have been social anyway - trust me on this - this is actually moreso. Horses for courses. What suffers is the housework.
“Seems” is the operative word, here. I don’t see how the Net has improved the fundamental quality of life at all, but I suspect I’m measuring the word “quality” in terms of happiness. It has made things more convenient, fast, and anonymous. That’s attractive, but it’s also sterile. Nevertheless you already have my argument using board discussion to counter the blanket charge that web activity is not social activity.
I think that when we say that the internet restricts social time, we must rightly specify what kinds of internet activities. If you do a lot of e-shopping or gaming (especially solo gaming) or watching movies and such on your own, then yes: the shoe certainly fits. I do agree that people seem to spend more time online than out in the 3D, though; the old hotspots are less frequented than ever. At a pub I asked someone about this, and got the reply that “everyone”, including my informant, usually stays at home and uses dating sites now. Now it seems to me that if you want to meet people, then meet them, and face to face. But computer dating is thought of as more convenient. I beg to differ, and because I think that this is a mistaken notion, I asked how many times he’d gotten burned by someone lying about themselves online, and he stopped, thought, admitted that the count was “almost every time”, and agreed that I had a good point. At least in a 3D social venue you can walk away without committing yourself, as opposed to agreeing to meet someone you’ve never met for a lunch assignation where you awkwardly eat your disappointment while sitting with a bait-and-switch. That is time and money ill-spent.
One of the most bizarre sights for me is to see a group of friends all quietly focused on their smartphones at a pub table.
But to regroup and further make my case that it’s more grey than back-and-white, here’s another thing: what about the simple love of reading? Sitting back with a book is thought of as quality time. To my mind, reading works online is hardly different, the only difference being that we haven’t arrived yet at a cultural norm that romanticises the image of reading on a computer in the same way. Of course there’s the discussion as to whether a good, solid physical book is better than a screen, but that’s a question of what personal taste and one’s cultural ideals can accept, isn’t it.
All this said, we have to face the fact that e-life (such as it may be) is here and people are living it with a vengeance, and I don’t see this changing any time soon. But I’m not championing it. So, I agree that for a full life, one must achieve balance as best as one can. Get outside. Dance in the rain. Pull weeds. Go to the grocer. Talk to your neighbor. Play a flute. Go out clubbing (and avoid getting arrested 
).
(This moment in philosophy brought to you by the folks at NanoWhat)
<--------