It took a couple reads, but I believe what they meant was: Any ecosystem where incompetence is assumed over malice creates material incentives for malice, beca

It took a couple reads, but I believe what they meant was: Any ecosystem where incompetence is assumed over malice creates material incentives for malice, because plausible deniability is fundamental to its environment. Therefore, malice is encouraged and becomes more likely, invalidating the theory. As for your reply, I'm not actually sure what to make of it or how it relates to the previous comment, so I can't comment.