It's written in a bit of a contradictory style, with its very approachable language contradicting what feels like university-focused chapter summaries at the end of each section as if intending to use this for a university program. I'm not sure that I would, personally. It also feels like it has a slight bias towards entertainment over informativeness, and an attempt to ascribe the author's own moral code in order to define scammers, victims, and whistleblowers. It is an interesting proposition and undertaking, but I don't know if such a thing can be prescriptive.

Additionally, however briefly it occurs, I take issue with the author's illustration of scammerlike traits being reflective of "toxic masculinity" (technically, it is a student of theirs that the author merely agrees with, but all the same) and that complacency in more well-meaning scam perpetrators are inherently feminine. It harms the overall thesis to split things into a gender binary: anyone can be a victim, and anyone can be a scammer. Obfuscating one and gently chiding the other will result in a lowered guard if these ideas are taken to heart.

Moreover, stressing that women are more frequently whistleblowers (on page 192, under an unsourced "research has shown") does not contradict the previous point necessarily, but I find that it contradicts the complacent "people pleaser" narrative from before. Were someone to be a toxic adherent to these binaries, in an extreme case one may decide that to report a crime is feminine. Other social issues like racial and LGBTQIA+ discrimination are handled very respectfully while not being so straightforwardly pitying, so I genuinely don't know why these points were thrown into the final draft.