If someone attempts to sell you something and you accept a deal, later finding out it was a fraud, it was your fault for not seeing through them. This is true twofold. First of all, you are not agreeing to their conditions and their claims about the product, you are agreeing to your perceptions of their conditions and your perceptions on the product. This is fundamentally true as language is never completely accurate. You also cannot truly hope to know absolutely all there is to know about anything, and yet you do agree to things, only to discover things about them later. It is distracting to call only the good things “pleasant surprises” while calling only the bad things “fraud” – indeed, it is even more distracting because not all bad things are things you would call “fraud”. Some you just accept, like your pencil’s lead breaking, or your apricot having a worm in it. You will always receive and discover surprises. To do nothing to others when you like something and then lash out at others when you don’t like something is rather distasteful.
Second, it is completely unproductive to blame others for your faults. So instead of a mutually beneficial interaction, it ended up only good for them and only bad for you. Are you really going to cry foul and wait for the gods to intervene for you? There is no such thing as a source of information that “lets” you form your own opinion, it exists as much as there exists as a source of information that “forcibly” makes you think a certain way. All information is biased in some way. If you observed it from media or from another person, it has gone through their perception. If you observed it yourself, it has gone through your perception. To chase objectivity is a pointless endeavor. And like all continued pointless endeavors, they are inevitably made less than useless. Is it a better use of your time to respectfully consider all things said as information, treating all cases you care for with your analysis and attention, or is it better to categorize yellow journalism vs true journalism, to seek out and take in information from just those sources which you believe to be correct and objective? The former trains you to always be on guard. The latter is dictated to fail by probability.
If anything, those who claim to be presenting unbiased information and those who continually say “it’s up to you to decide” are the most suspicious. I don’t have stats for this, but… if you check, you’ll likely find that these kinds of people are the ones who change what they say the most, ignoring that they may have contradicted what they said just recently. If they do not ignore it, they quickly dismiss it with a “Everyone changes, new evidence arises.” This is no different from the peddler who swindled you. You can call either one fraud. But in the end, they are the same, because fraud is a two party thing. It can only be fraud if you think it is.
Whether or not you think about something and change your opinions is always up to you.