That's why they're called "options". Bad writing is bad, no argument there - but if you choose to read it all anyway, that's your fault.
We are 99% in agreement, but not on this point.
Obviously, it is literally true that (assuming the existence of free will) a player has a choice whether to pick the "give me more lore" option. Note that the same argument can apply to many other flaws in games -- "A grossly overpowered item is bad, but if you choose to equip it anyway, that's
your fault"; "Level scaling that incentives tagging the skills you used least is only a problem if you exploit the system" "You can always close to pop-up window telling you how to solve the crisis" -- though of course the argument is more or less persuasive depending on the circumstances.
The thing is, there are both sensible and neurotic reasons a player can't just pick 4. From the sensible standpoint, experience and other rewards are often (though not always) hidden behind 1-3. The game is sometimes balanced on the presumption that you will get those rewards. Sometimes the rewards are not power-ups, but opportunities to do the non-lore-dump things you might want to do -- like use the persuasion skill rather than fighting. Obviously players can pick ~4 and then not read the text dump they get in response, but (1) that is actually what most people do to some degree and (2) it is hard to completely do it because our eyes will automatically start skimming even if we don't want to.
I am somewhat less concerned with "sensible" decision making, though, because it is totally obvious to me that a huge number of players, myself included, are not able to make "good" choices (by which I mean, the choices that make the game the most fun and satisfying experience) without the game supporting and encouraging good choices and discouraging bad choices. Once you put some mediocre items in 15% of the trashcans in a game, a very large portion of players will feel compelled to look in every trashcan, even if it isn't necessary, even if it super boring, because of a mix of immediate completionism ("gotta catch them all!") and fear of losing an edge that will permit later completionism (e.g., the extra gold will let me buy a charisma-boosting ring that will let me unlock an additional dialogue option with my companion which will let me find out more of his backstory....).
If players are picking lore dumps even if they really don't particularly like them, it's probably not effective to harangue them about it, since the unpleasantness of the lore dump is already worse than your harangue. The obligation is on the game designer to steer players away from Skinner box neuroticism and toward meaningful and engaging gameplay that rewards through the thrill and fun and pride of playing, rather than by the mere stimulus of operant conditioning rewards. Even if a particular developer isn't actually using operant condition to encourage players to read loredumps (for example, by giving the player achievements for reading dialogue or XP rewards), that doesn't absolve the developer from an obligation to decondition players.
--EDIT--
By the way, I feel obliged to make clear that "good" and "bad" choices here are not referring to good or bad character builds or something like that. I have views on that topic, but I am not here saying that developers need to make sure players make "winning" choices; if anything, the problem is that players are
too concerned with winning, even if it means winning in a totally boring way.