We've got two major changes between the last days of the dominance of film and today's ubiquitous digital photography - certainly on the "domestic" front rather than the pro/enthusiast front. Firstly, film was (is) a lot more expensive and slower to create photos (by slower I mean you don't get the picture immediately - you need to finish the roll of film, get it processed etc.) and secondly, the way photos are viewed and shared.
Photography was harder then - not to get a decent picture but to get a picture at all: more effort, more money, more waiting days or weeks to see the result. Most people didn't carry a camera everywhere they went because of the sheer hassle and the inconvenience/expense of actually making photos out of it but now, just about everyone has a camera on them everywhere they go (even the bathroom - as evidenced via soc. media selfies).
And if the film ever got developed and printed (I'm sure that many rolls got half used and then left in the camera for months only to be removed and the camera reloaded for the next holiday or special occasion), then the photos were usually put in a box to be gotten out on rare occasions - or special photos were framed and displayed in the home.
Nowadays, anyone under the age of about 25 has been practically brought up in an age where everyone carries a camera everywhere and always - and photos can be immediately uploaded to social media or electronically posted for literally millions of people to see (even if only a handful of people see them) - and all this for next to nothing in running/production costs to the individual.
I'm sure that there are plenty of really bad photos in plenty of shoe boxes in the homes of people who grew up and raised families with film rather than digital photography but we'll never get to see them. I'm sure that some were so bad that they didn't even make it to the shoe box. But most photos were taken and kept for the memories, not as the practice of a craft or art: being bad only mattered if it failed to do the job of keeping the memory or proved prohibitively expensive.
I would hazard a guess and say that (domestic) photography today is as bad or better than domestic photography of the latter film era but because it's easier and cheaper, there's more of it and more people see it. But some of the young ones have got very adept at taken good photographs with the equipment they have - even if it's not to our tastes or we think it has little artistic merit - I'm amazed at the techniques and results of some of the selfies online.
Then there's the other side of the equation. Back in the days of film, people knew their limitations and if they wanted a special occasion properly captured, they would hire a professional, particularly for weddings or for family portraits (or they knew an enthusiast in the family who would do their best). People rarely had the equipment and were aware of the costs of film etc. Nowadays, almost everybody has some sort of equipment capable of far more than the cheap 35mm or 120 110* cameras from the film era, and almost everybody sees the act of producing photographs as something cheap. They fail to appreciate the value of a professional (often expecting the better results to be down purely to the expensive camera). You also get people who think that if they get an expensive camera then they will be able to get the better results. There's a product from all this where you get poor photographers touting themselves as professionals, often undercutting the true professionals - and the customer can't see why the true professional is charging so much.
Similarly, with journalistic photography, more amateurs are likely to get a photo of an event just because almost everyone has a capable camera on them at the ready. Printed newspapers are not what they used to be and most people expect to get their news online for "free". News producers are only too happy to publish a picture from an amateur (who is often happy with the kudos of their photo being used and not so bothered about remuneration).
So we see a lot more rubbish photography now than we would see 20 years ago. With a little effort and application, we can also see a lot more good photography than we would see 20 years ago. And (digital) cameras generally have got a lot better - both for taking crap photos and for taking good photos.
* correction edit
well said Garry. I think the modern day P&S is exactly that and weilded by folks who just want a snapshot (in general) whereas 20 years ago photography enthusiasts were looking at digital seriously but would use the compact as if it were a film camera therefore taking just as much care over subject, composition and light as they always did.
