Explaining how something can occur, and how it can be misinterpreted as malevolence, is not justifying or defending it.

Well said. I am in such despair over the world's shift from "doing wrong things is wrong" to "understanding the motivations of those who do wrong things is wrong." Just more of the war on reason, and it's sad.

The problem is that understanding the motivation doesn't change the result. You may come to understand that the tiger isn't eating you because it hates you, but rather it's just eating you because it's hungry; yet that doesn't change the fact that tiger is eating you. Hanlon's razor is a meme that is too often used to defend and excuse the malicious incompetence of the powerful.

Hanlon's razor is never an excuse or defense. I have literally never seen it used that way. It is, as you say, a statement that the tiger is eating you because it's hungry.

I firmly believe that more understanding is always better than less. If you understand that the tiger is eating you because it's hungry, you at least have some chance of diverting its attention by offering an alternative, less feisty meal.

But covering your ears and eyes and shouting "it's an evil tiger that hates me!"... how is that in any way better than understanding objective reality? And why in the world would you attack someone for making the observation that the tiger is hungry rather than agreeing with factually incorrect claims about the tiger holding a personal vendetta?

It's bizarre, and IMO unhealthy.

Hanlons razor would not be used to explain a tiger eating a person.

Hanlon's razor would be used to stop a mob from lynching the tour guide that was supposed to guide that person through the zoo. One explanation is that the tour guide intentionally arranged for the person to be eaten. This is malevolent and dispicable act. Hanlon's razor says "Hold on, maybe he just wasn't aware the tiger was out of the cage at that time".

It is effectively the presumption of "Innocence (stupidity)" vs persumption of "Guilt (malevolence)" stated another way.

Absolutely. Description is now advocacy.

Not that I'm arguing one way or another, but everyone posting "Hanlon's Razor, QED" should consider that Hanlon's Razor is 1) a heuristic and 2) breaks down _very_ quickly around psycho/sociopaths.

Also, when the incentives are worth billions of dollars and the players are the biggest names in tech worldwide.

Read about any kind of historical coup and there's all kinds of both 1) incompetent fumbles and 2) elaborate subterfuge.