I like to read the editorials in PC Magazine. Specifically, I like reading the ones by John C. Dvorak. Recently, though, I read this editorial on how fragile social networks are. Go ahead and read it, then come back. I’ll wait.

Done? Good. Now what I say will (hopefully) make sense.

Dvorak argues that social networks are flimsy, non-real entities that can collapse on a whim. He cites an example of this from the pre-Web era of the Internet (and yes, there was an Internet before there was a Web). But his point is that all these ways people connect using social networking tools don’t really create any kind of lasting network, precisely because they are built using social networking software. And this from someone who has been in the industry for years.

My argument is that this stance ignores the nature of human interaction. If anything, social networking boils down that interaction to its simplest form, but it hardly changes its nature. People have been using whatever technology is available to create and dissolve networks as long as there have been people to do so. Remember the idea of pen pals? Social networking tools simply make that connection much faster to create, but no faster to lose.

People make and break connections with each other all the time. The only difference is how they do so. Whether it’s through e-mail, snail mail, or face-to-face interaction, anything can cement or destroy a relationship. Blaming the technology for the fragile nature of social networks of any form is just silly.

People form social networks all the time, and they dissolve just as easily. The Web has not created this process, it has simply made it more universally available. That’s an important distinction to keep in mind, especially when considering the use of technology. It isn’t about making “fake” connections, but about making connections that can endure or disappear. Hopefully, we can learn how to make connections that endure.