No, you totally, utterly fail to understand the interaction here and it is you that should stop. If you want to second guess the moderation here you're on very thin ice, this is a pretty clear cut case of someone purposefully ignoring the meat of an article to stir the pot.
Note that the victims here are not party to the exchange, contrary to what is claimed in that comment, it is the call center employees of the phone company that are being social engineered into making an unauthorized change to a subscribers record.
If you want to limit the use of the words 'social engineering' to the cases where the victims are the ones being social engineered you're ignoring about 3 decades worth of use of the term to apply to any situation where through clever exchanges an elevated level of access was achieved to some resource or other, and those exchanges do not have to be directly with the victim.
Typical example: call the secretary from the 'IT department' to gain access to the system of the boss.
Note that the victims here are not party to the exchange, contrary to what is claimed in that comment, it is the call center employees of the phone company that are being social engineered into making an unauthorized change to a subscribers record.
If you want to limit the use of the words 'social engineering' to the cases where the victims are the ones being social engineered you're ignoring about 3 decades worth of use of the term to apply to any situation where through clever exchanges an elevated level of access was achieved to some resource or other, and those exchanges do not have to be directly with the victim.
Typical example: call the secretary from the 'IT department' to gain access to the system of the boss.