I too would take the risk of getting addicted to Internet porn if it also means immediate access to authorities and medical personnel to treat venomous snake bites, etc. much sooner. This seems like an acceptable trade-off to me.
Same goes for internet access. Every bank used to have offices with customer service in every small village. Now only some of the larger cities have an office if you're lucky. We make things as accessible as we need it to be, so reducing time to access does not necessarily improve the situation in all perspectives.
You can pretty reliably half your mortgage in most parts of the developed world by accepting an extra half hour on your commute - if you commute. This trend is likely to only intensify as incomes rise, the Linder Theorem [1] becomes stronger, and people become less willing to accept even a 5 minute addition to their commute in exchange for saving tens of thousands of dollars over the course of their life. (Which makes sense - 5 minutes over a 40 year career for a $100/hr salaried professional comes at a cost somewhere north of $150,000).
[1]: https://www.opus1journal.org/articles/article.asp?docID=145
Intuitively, I don't think most fully remote workers who moved moved to genuinely remote areas - maybe to smaller cities, and the outskirts of those smaller cities at that, but the amenities of any city above 100,000 or so genuinely are quite nice to have handy. I wonder if rural areas saw much of an uptick in absolute, but even in relative, terms.