Believe it or not, but my family made a point of keeping in touch with distant relatives waaaay before social networks like Facebook. Heck, they did this back in the day when mail was the only mechanism (arguably mail & telephones are themselves social networks just in a different modality).
Now it has made that easier and maybe cheaper (although only if you ignore messaging apps). I'm not sure there's data one way or the other to suggest that it has enabled new familial connections that wouldn't otherwise have happened. Even in the digital erra, we've had
You don’t need a social network for that, just a messaging app. The idea that families would not be able to keep in touch without social media is absurd and obviously wrong.
You don't need them, but friction matters. You can stay in touch via the postal service. That does not mean that newer mediums with lower friction and more capabilities do not deliver real value to people.
Whether or not social media is a net positive, no serious person can argue that they do not deliver value to large numbers of people.
Does it? I just opened Facebook, scrolled for a while, and didn’t see any family photos. I saw a bunch of lizard brain short videos of people fighting in road rage incidents, attractive women dancing and such, airsoft gun games (no idea why Facebook thinks I’d like this), and other similar types of things not related to my family. I actually liked Facebook when it mostly showed me photos of friends and family, but I’m guessing that isn’t profitable enough.
The feed really depends on what you have reacted to in the past. I routinely "hide all from" most pages and friends-of-friends so I mostly only see original content from friends and family.
I never told it to show me short form video of random things not related to my family and friends. I also never reacted to it. The idea that FB is about staying in touch with family, and that it's the best way to do that, is absurd when you look at what FB is today.
For all the deserved hate, some good has come.