why not both?

> Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice, and should be treated accordingly.

I disagree with this as stated. Maybe in the right context you could make a case for it, but in general? Heck no. Intent matters a great deal, and there is no justice in treating someone incompetent (or negligent) the same as someone who is actually malicious. Both things are bad, but the latter is worse than the former even if they lead to the same outcome.

In the context of a company doing something like this, intent does not matter in the slightest.

One could say that simply incentives are wrong so people turn negligent and/or are out of their breadth on a topic.

But is there someone accountable for it being so? Are they malicious? Who is ultimately to blame?

> Intent matters a great deal,

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.