Yeah, it's often difficult to find the line between asking someone basic questions to confirm they have the skills/knowledge/experience they claim to have and just firing random academic/esoteric questions at them that would be easily googleable. I'm not sure the questions matter as much as the interpretations of the answers (or lack therof). If you say you have experience with a framework I'll ask enough specific questions to know whether or not you've worked with it. I don't care if you miss questions that you may not have come across. And of course as the interviewee it's important to recognize that you shouldn't be expected to know every nook and cranny of every detail unless you claim to know it.

It's muddied somewhat by the sarcasm, but malice isn't necessarily implied nor salient in the OP's point.

What room is there for ignorance in figuring out how to conduct a technical interview?

Are you joking? Interviewing involves many skills. Technical interviewing moreso

Right. So why would we be forgiving of people being ignorant about it?

I mean, yes, it's certainly possible to be ignorant about it, lots of people are. But unless you somehow want to hire people who are completely uncorrelated with being good employees, the distinction between unwittingly and wittingly being a terrible interviewer seems a bit thin.

I never implied we should be tolerant of ignorance. "It isn't necessarily malice" is what I basically said. That's not the same as "It's ignorance and that's great."

And the distinction isn't thin. It's the difference between an easily solvable problem and a really hard to solve problem.

Ignorance that can easily be misinterpreted as malice is actually just a passive form of malice.

Nonsense. Ignorance is fixed by teaching. Malice is not.