Yes.
Also, the days before broadband, smartphones, algorithms and AI.
When people used to have to make an effort to get online, they were less vulnerable to wild claims. Sure, they could switch their computer on, connect their dial-up and find websites but they got most of their information from non digital sources with clear ownership and provenance. They read the articles that were in the newspaper they chose to buy, not ones that Google selected for them based on data that Google had collected about them. If they did come across eccentric claims on a website, after they'd removed themselves from the internet they'd have a conversation about it with the next real life person they spoke to, someone who actually knew them, and get some distance and clarity.
Now, a person reading eccentric claims will be fed more of the same, by a device that they have with them all the time without which they struggle to access commercial transactions, entertainment, social activities and, often, work. To an extent they can still be pulled out of it by a friendly chat. But when this coincides with a period of isolation/withdrawal from regular human contact, through eg illness, personal difficulty, pandemic, some of that protective effect is lost.
Plus as you say the eccentric claims are given extra clout in the first place by this moronic notion that all opinions are valid, that personal experience trumps knowledge, that anecdata is significant information.