Ignoring hanlon's razor (and its variations) and immediately assuming malice everywhere will prevent you from understanding the problem. You can't fix a problem you do not understand. So please don't just go around throwing "x is a very bad man" unless you have tangible proof, it serves no purpose.
Which razor is the one where you automatically presume I think the person is intentionally malicious? The black guy in Terminator 2 wasn't being malicious, but he was a very bad man in regards to what he was bringing to the human race.
Also, it's impossible to provide tangible proof for any opinion. My opinion is that Zuckerberg is a very bad person, and that is not a personal attack. A personal attack is never an opinion. Rather, personal attacks are when people have the intent of attacking to insult, to hurt, to throw wrenches into arguments, and so on.
Hacker News might disagree and appeal to their arbitrary rules about what's right and wrong, but to call my comment that "Zuckerberg is a very bad man" an assumption of malice, an unproven claim, or a personal attack is more of all three against myself than anything.
"Bad" doesn't necessarily equate with malice. In Internet discourse it's uncommon that "evil" carries very specific meaning: centralized, separate access to signalling from data, specifications closed or under NDA, gatekeepers for services, potentially rent-seeking.
In short, everything that the new TCP/IP landscape brought and many geeks loved at first sight. It's a very silly word, but it's useful, because you can't start every conversation by debating the value of decentralization. That way you can signal that you are not interested in the never ending conversation about emergency services and quality of service, and instead want to focus on what kind of service innovation a network of peers could bring.
