Look there are prolly nuances to the Undue Influence argument where sure, yeah, at some point you do have to say "there is some individual resppnsibility for maintaining an information diet and body of knowledge/beliefs that map to and align with reality", and like if someone hurts themself (or others) acting on bad information there is a question of what they could have done to get better information,

but also like I think the first instinct should be-- and if there are huge ad campaigns and repeated instructions and messaging put out trying to seed false information/bad sources/unhelpful instructions, all the more so we should be--
trying on first looking at the person as someone acting in good faith under bad information, and looking for who might have been pushing that bad information/source/instructions, and looking for the duped party's perspective (especially if they're also the victim) to look for what their experience of recieving that info might have been.

This is about AI.