Seen, but Not Known: The Search for Genuine Relationship in the Age of Social Media

 “The digital age has given us the promise of connectivity being the same thing as community, and it’s just not.”

John Mark Comer

We live in an era where likes, follows, reels, and instant replies make up a significant portion of our interaction. John Mark Comer’s observation cuts through this reality with refreshing honesty. The digital world has given us endless ways to stay in touch, yet the culture of social media, which connects us, also isolates us. Genuine and real community, found in shared experiences, empathy and presence, can’t be replicated by pixels alone. Technology, however, isn’t the enemy; it’s a tool. The question is: are we using it to truly know and understand others, or does it simply serve our own visibility and consumption of information?

As a 25-year-old in 2025, instant connection isn’t new to me. In my early teens, my BlackBerry and BBM^[1] kept me constantly in touch, while Instagram let me see what friends were doing without ever asking. A quick FaceTime call was just a tap away, and it was easy to lose hours scrolling. Back then, my online “community” largely mirrored my offline one — friends from school or family connections.

Today, the online world has expanded dramatically. Connection is now instantaneous and global, and for many people their closest friends are those they have never met in person. While virtual closeness is possible, and technology has undoubtedly opened new doors to community, it also raises a question: 

How well do we truly know the people we encounter online?

For Gen Z, this challenge feels particularly real. Beyond scrolling through someone’s carefully curated Instagram feed, what we know of others online is limited to what they choose to share. This leads us to ask: Is it truly possible to sustain a healthy relationship with someone we never meet in person? 

The Relational Proximity Framework offers a helpful lens through which to explore what supports or undermines closeness in digital relationships. It identifies five key principles, parity, directness, continuity, multiplexity, and commonality, that shape our ability to understand another person’s background, motivations, and shared values or goals.

So where, if at all, do these five relational principles apply in an online world? And how can younger Relationists model these values when navigating relationships online? Here’s my best attempt to apply each principle in turn. 

Parity: Discussion in virtual spaces is often particularly hostile. The nature of online environments can encourage people to communicate in ways that are more unfiltered, unkind, and unwelcoming than they might be in person. It is also far easier to disengage abruptly—commonly known as ghosting—with little consequence or opportunity for repair. What does it mean to treat others with respect online? How can we structure virtual spaces so that everyone feels included and valued equally? In online group chats, how do we ensure that quieter or marginalized voices are heard and not overlooked?

Directness: Online communication often lacks the depth of face-to-face interaction. In text-based exchanges, we miss out on tone and emotion, and even just the lack of eye contact impacts our ability to build trust, receive sincerity and foster intimacy. When discussing difficult or sensitive topics, we should aim for face-to-face conversation so that facial expression, body language, and tone of voice can help convey understanding. Even a zoom or video call can offer a far richer form of communication than text alone.

Continuity: While online communication has enabled conversations to continue almost ‘non-stop’, instant messaging and video calling have moved beyond simply helping us schedule time to catch up: they have increasingly replaced face-to-face interaction. Constant digital access rarely translates into meaningful, intentional communication. We seldom schedule time to talk deeply, or pause long enough to reflect on the other person’s perspective before responding.

Multiplexity: Rarely do we encounter people across multiple contexts. Yet seeing someone in different settings deepens understanding and enriches connection. If we know someone online, can we get to know them offline too? If we know them in a work context, could we engage with them elsewhere, perhaps through sport, or volunteering?

Commonality: In an increasingly polarised society, we tend to focus more on what is different and the distinctives that divide us. The online world enables us to do this even more, through the chosen narrative of ourselves we decide to present. This two-dimensional presentation can result in shallow relationships, where shared values or goals remain unclear. Identifying common threads, whether interests, convictions, or hopes, can provide a bridge for deeper and more meaningful dialogue. A quick look at what someone posts or follows online could reveal shared interests and provide a bridge for genuine dialogue.

When we apply these five relational principles to the virtual world, we begin to see that technology can replicate certain aspects of community, but it can never fully replace it. As Comer suggests, connectivity is not the same as communion. I cannot claim to have the monopoly of wisdom on online relationships, but perhaps this framework offers helpful guidance for navigating the spaces between our clicks, taps, swipes and sends.

---

Comments and discussion are welcome (see below). Please note that comments will be moderated to avoid trolling and spamming, and so will not appear immediately.