There is nothing unusual in this. You can see the same effect in intermediate games, 1500+ - the only the difference is that the 'needle' doesn't swing as much, but in relative terms the consequences can be the exact same.
That situation becomes more and more rare as the rating of the players increases. You can also see good examples of it watching Levy's "Noob Arena" series. The lower rated players tend to just make moves with very little thought, no plan, and hang pieces left and right. Players in the 1500 range start to come up with semi-logical plans and do not hang pieces nearly as much.
There was a discussion years ago about the differences between players at certain levels. A GM replied and it went something like this: Below 1200, almost every other move or more is a blunder; at 1500 they only blunder 1-2 times per game; at 2000, maybe once per game; at 2200, once every 5 games, at 2500 once every 10 games.
The numbers may be a bit off, but the idea is the same. You can see that by looking at the statistics on sites like AimChess.
And with that, when players are blundering every other move, it doesn't matter much if they are 100, or 900. The match is "even" in that they both will have many winning chances left on the table.
Not my experience, it's actually very rare for a sub-1000 opponent to just outright hang a piece, maybe a combination that loses a piece, those do happen - pawns being the most likely victims. Sub-1000 players are actually far better than to randomly hang pieces without some sort of end -of-game time handicap.
Just because a computer evaluates a move as poor after a few seconds of calculation doesn't make a move poor. A poor move is only a poor if and only if the opponent capitalises on it! And if the position is complex enough for one player to make a poor move a player of similar rating is likely to respond with just as poor a move for failing to capitalise. If a player capitalises on a poor move then generally the complexity decreases, if not you often get runs of 'poor' moves before the complexity decreases. At lower levels these runs of poor moves are longer but once resolved the moves become solid - albeit one player will be at a significant disadvantage. This is a very familiar pattern.
I analyse my games off-line running Arena/Stockfish through the games, often leaving the engine to run for many minutes for certain positions. I also look at the five-best moves all the time, and most of the time there is less than half-pawn evaluation spread across the top five moves. If say, d4 is the strongest move as determined by the engine, then if I don't play d4 chess.com analysis will flag each subsequent failure to play d4 as a blunder, yet my opponent during those subsequent moves never countered the possibility of me playing d4. How are these subsequent moves blunders? All this is aside from the fact that more often than not playing the strongest computer move leads to more a complex position and therefore I would never make the move even if I had known it was the strongest.
Also note that high-level youtubers and bloggers etc are more likely to select lower-level games that correspond to an expectation of the gameplay, yet these high-levellers never actually play low-levellers, indeed if rating was involved, they would avoid low-levellers like the plague!
It's the speed that I can't deal with. Even in the blitz formats where you get a few seconds back, I'll do too much thinking and run out of time long before my opponent does. And if I compensate by moving too quickly, I make mistakes I'd almost never make in a rapid game. Either way I still lose. At the lower levels of blitz chess, this game is just a whole bunch of weird openings and pure chaos. It's fun (sometimes) and addictive, but I don't think it's improved my play one bit.
I also think the pool of players in the blitz formats may be larger and for that reason full of stronger players at all levels (or at least there are more players out there better suited to blitz than I am).