"...geographical limits... was what filtered out the toxicity we observe now"I don't doubt that that was true. I could amplify my reasons for why I reckon it's so but here that wouldn't contribute much more than I've already said.
I was brought up in a reasonably but not strictly socially conservative town of some 12,000 or so with seemingly few social problems that was about 70 miles from a large urban center of some millions.
Certainly, back then, there were no drug issues other than perhaps alcohol and that wasn't obvious to me. In hindsight, it was a halcyon time and place in which to grow up and I'm so glad that that was my childhood and teenage experience.
No doubt, there were those whose experience wasn't typical but they were never prominent in that they were the subject of common discussion. (Incidentally, I'd never heard the term 'nazi sympathizer' until years after I'd left the town.)
From my experience, the never-ending and increasing loads of information, much of which isn't positive, that people are now exposed to is most of the problem
- and it doesn't matter much from where it comes or what it's about.
My early years have taught me that there's a type of threshold effect at work here. People can cope tollerably well with a certain level of negative information after which their defenses break down (as I see it, humans have only limited capacity to process 'bad' information before they begin to suffer emotionally).
I've little practical idea how we go about resolving this problem in our 'over-connected' societies. Speaking for myself, I've almost completely given up watching TV or listening to radio news and I'd not be seen dead anywhere near social media.
These avoidance habits work for me and stop me from becoming despondent. Unfortunately, I've observed that for many the worse the news is the more addictive their attention becomes.