While I agree to the sentiment behind this, I think the statement itself bleeds arrogance and a step back towards the times of “Caveat Emptor”.
It’s not the user’s fault. It’s never the user’s fault. If some detriment that affects users at large can be avoided, I believe it is the maker’s responsibility to avoid them.
I’m not talking about edge cases or 1% scenarios — but if things are designed with a possible (undisclosed) usage that will affect a majority of users negatively, shifting the consequence to the user is just plain irresponsibility of the maker.
Again, I understand the statement within the context of “addictions we have not yet evolved antibodies for”, but as an overarching principle, I think it’s just plain wrong.