Just Devil's Advocate, but I think it's fairly well established that human memories are not "kinda inaccurate", they are woefully inaccurate. Most of the time a human can get some of the big stuff right, but the neuro-psychological underpinnings of "attention" and "memory" pretty much guarantee we will miss a lot of what's going on. (And if we can put the human under enough stress, s/he will not even get the big stuff right.) The fact is, humans rarely even "see" what's actually in front of them, let alone have any "memory" of what was actually in front of them. (For us, reality is not reality, rather our perception is our reality.)

Now the memory being inaccurate to start with does not make manipulating that already inaccurate memory "ok". There's no question about that. Though having said that, it's important to note that because memories are so malleable and inaccurate, we've actually been manipulating them for a long time. It's actually a pretty well researched area.

I mean, this is not really new.

I agree that it is bad to embrace/shrug off memory manipulation with the rationalization that memory has always been reliable. [Edit: Unreliable]

It is also bad to ignore the evidence that memories are unreliable with or without memory manipulation.

We can acknowledge the weakness without using it as justification.

That sounds pretty level-headed to me. Acknowledging one's own fallibility/being humble in the face of one's own ignorance is broadly helpful. It seems it only becomes a problem when you start deeply distrusting yourself; you can never get away with wholly doubting yourself.

In my experience (I have a pretty TERRIBLE memory - people routinely reference events I participated in but have no recollection of, and when I consider if a particular believable event happened, I can imagine it and have no real way to distinguish the imagination from actual memory), the real problem comes with interacting with those that demonstrate full and utter confidence.

I doubt myself, but I still see the need to make decisions. Most people, faced with my caveats, allow that they can be wrong as well, and we decide things. But the problem cases are without any doubt - my caveats only prove their correctness. If presented with convincing evidence of their fault, they move on to the next thing and never learn that 100% confidence is overconfidence.

I don't know that my lack of trust in my memories makes me more vulnerable to such people or if they only react to facing others as immovable as themselves, with everyone else being indistinguishable speed bumps.

We know memory is fallible. This hasn't stopped prosecutors from manipulating eye witness testimony in the pursuit of convictions over the truth.