I think your assertion that the new technologies force us to communicate with those who disagree or believe differently is undeniably true.

In your last paragraph you also raise an important distinction: between "extreme idea's" and "acting like a jerk". Those are two very different problems, and we shouldn't conflate the two. Just because someone supports an idea you find offensive doesn't mean they are acting like a jerk.

I do not feel that the past had a solution to prevent "extremist idea's". This is why I raised the macro situation. Not because of any claim you made about it, but rather to illustrate why I disagree.

It is important to remember that "extremist idea's" aren't necessarily bad or evil idea's, no matter how offensive society finds them. We now hold for granted that slavery is wrong, but that was at one point an extreme position - one that deeply offended large groups of people, to a point that they fought a war over it. Gay marriage, women's suffrage and the right to abortion were extreme positions as well at one point, and some are still deeply offended by the latter.

Now you might argue this supports your position that pre-internet society and personal social circles should be in control as they limit more extreme ideas but still allow ideas which are "good" to rise to the top. However, I would counter that this is not by merit of the system, but rather in spite of it - many of these social revolutions we now take for granted were hard fought from a position of extremism before they became mainstream.

Moreover, it isn't just "good" that rises to the top in this environment either. The rise of fascism and communism in the 20th century seem ample evidence to me that the personal social circles and social controls don't just let good idea's through - bad ones can rise to power just as much, with some very bloody consequences.

So even if it were possible to go back to the "old days", it would be naive to presume the social structures of those days somehow prevent or limited extremism. Frankly, the most obvious examples of extremism came to power well before the internet.

Then there is the second problem, that of letting the powers that be control what we see and consume, especially in the broader context of "fake news".

The person or institution that forms the "outside police" essentially needs to decide what is and what is not "fake news", what opinions you can discuss and what opinions are simply too offensive to be debated, and even what idea's we can and cannot explore.

That kind of control over what information you are allowed to consume and what thoughts you are allowed to discuss is an enormous level of power that cannot possibly be understated. I don't think I need to point out how such control has historically empowered the corrupt.

We cannot simply yadayada away the most fundamental question such a model raises: Who can we trust with that power and how can we be sure they are, and remain, uncorrupted?