I don't think Hanlon's Razor was intended to let anyone off the hook. Just because incompetence on its own can sufficiently explain a problem doesn't mean it's no longer a problem, nor does it mean that you accept the frame that allows the incompetence to go unchecked.

Rather, Hanlon's Razor helps you prevent conflating the problem with its perpetrator, because doing so makes the problem harder to solve: The minds of people you approach in bad faith are harder to change.

Because the razor is meant for informal and a posteriori use, we can also use tools like control charts to ask whether there is a trend, a run, or upper/lower control limit being exceeded, etc.

If there is a progression or history of events, I think you can safely put aside Hanlon's Razor, and say, wait a minute, we've been here before

Because I’m really tired of rich and powerful getting a pass because “they didn’t intend to ruing y’all’s livelihood”.

I receive a lot of those insults because I have non-conforming opinions on verification (within the tech community anyway). But I appreciate when someone engages with me on the actual topic.

The purpose of a active system, is what it does

A clarifying addition?

agreed. what i said.

> Otherwise they would have changed, removed or replaced that system.

that's a stretch. they might not understand what the system is doing (disagreeing about the effects of a system is normal); they might not actually have power to fix it, for example because the ultimate effects of a system are soft.

there's a story about how the lego world mmo was (eventually, reluctantly) shut down because they couldn't stop folks building dicks. you might say the purpose of the system was to build dicks; that's what it DID. but the designers couldn't stop it.

just two reasons why they might not be able to change a system.

Thus for any system that persists, to the entities that influence it's continued existence: what the system does must be desired by those entities. Otherwise they would have changed, removed or replaced that system.

Maybe I'm missing it, or muddying the waters.
Maybe it's to late on a Sunday.

that said, i'm here to endorse what i believe was meant: that good intentions behind a bad system are worth nothing. "the purpose of a system isn't what it does, but it might as well be"