interesting that for some crime it's ok to call the victims muppets, and I'm being genuine here not snide. But there certainly seems to be a sliding scale around victim blaming, crime and what is and isn't ok to lambast people for. I've been sort of on the receiving end via assisting elderly relatives and it's heartbreaking at times. During my Great Uncles descent into alzheimers, and before the family became properly aware, he was ripped of many times. I accept that some of these were genuine errors as he was masking his symptoms for quite a while. But some were outrageous and included major players like satellite, water and energy companies. I won't even go into the door knocker types that abused his fragile mental state.
For three of these I managed to secure full refunds going back nearly 3 years, amazingly not only do they record calls but they keep these recordings. He'd been signed up to Indian language pay channels, additional cover and call out insurance. He had services he had no use for and cover for things he didn't possess, even worse the water company had him doubled up for the same cover contract. It took several months but the resulting refunds were all accompanied by letters that could have been written by the same person. Usual corporate plausible deniability and 'rogue' individual excuses and each confirmed that having reviewed the recordings of the calls it was clear that my Uncle hadn't been making an informed purchasing decision. The sad, or maybe it's fortuitous, part is that he has no idea now and, minus family support, his wife would probably still be paying for all this stuff.
Now I know that when you call tech users muppets you're not really meaning the most vulnerable members of society. I get that you just mean those that you deem stupid but capable of not being so stupid. But that's subjective and I reckon a zero tolerance approach for victim blaming would be more beneficial...but that's just my take on it.