Apologists for reading as a solitary activity reserved for curmudgeonly recluses are curious. Judging by the responses in this thread, they are not defending an activity so much as an associated personality type. To be a reader is to be a loner.
In truth, social reading has a long history. If historian Alberto Manguel is to believed, even though instances of silent reading can be traced to earlier dates, it didn't become usual in the West until the 10th century. Augustine found his friend Ambrose's habit of reading silently so curious that it merited mention in The Confessions. Ancient Hebrew, the language of the Bible, does not differentiate between the act of speaking and the act of reading. Both are named with the same word, and English retains traces of the overlap between the two in its idioms: we say, "I've heard from So-and-so" (meaning "I've received a letter"), or "So-and-so says" (meaning "So-and-so wrote"), or "This text doesn't sound right" (meaning "It isn't well written"). To read was to speak and to hear.
Even after silent reading became normal, it was still not commonplace. Low literacy rates meant most people's access to texts depended on others reading aloud to them well into the 18th century, which in part explains the success of coffee shops as places of social gathering. The assembly of listeners played as vital a role in reading as do today's movie audiences, whose reactions provide important context for fellow spectators and are an essential part of the experience.
Solitary reading is a historical aberration, not a natural state of affairs. Social reading, if not more normal, boasts at least of a far longer pedigree.
Dismissiveness of attempts to socialize reading are inextricable from contempt for what passes as socializing these days. That is reasonable, but it is confusing two different issues. Everyone should read this short essay by Maciej Ceglowski called
The Social Graph is Neither, which argues that online social networks fail at both accurately modelling our relationships with others and understanding what constitutes a genuine social interaction (hint: it's not clicking on a Like button). Attempts to socialize reading to date have also been quite clumsy; few things are more disappointing than checking out a library book covered in highlights and whose margins are filled with cretinous comments. Why should anyone want this behaviour duplicated on books they've bought? Nevertheless, more authentic forms of social interaction abound online, particularly on message boards. Goodreads is a good attempt at creating a social network for readers, but is a better catalogue than social network.
So to the answer the question, of course social reading is the wave of the future. Or at least, it will be a major part of it. We are wired to want to discuss and share our experiences with others. It is natural to want to influence the opinions of those who look up to us and benefit from the experience of those whom we seek to emulate. Now that we have the tools to create virtual communities centred around shared interests, there is no reason why we shouldn't.