It's just a weird use of the word caused that gives people the wrong impression a lot of the time. If I say "Fireman Rick caused that house to burn down" most people will think Fireman Rick is an arsonist and not necessarily that he didn't act swiftly and quickly to put it out. And then if you say most houses burning down were caused by firemen many people might get the wrong impression that if we got rid of the fire department less houses would burn down instead of more.
P.s. I know Milton Friedman is to blame for this terribly tortured use of the word.
Or to give it more of a HN spin: if Rick's job was to run a website, but hackers broke in and stole all the plaintext passwords, it could be construed as partially Rick's fault for negligently storing the passwords in plaintext, even though the hackers were the ones directly responsible for the hack.
But it's also a bit philosophical, because any causal claim implicitly invokes a counterfactual. Like, if a bus drives off a cliff, was it the fault of the cliff or the bus driver who didn't respond quickly enough in trying to steer away? To me, common sense says that sometimes it's the cliff's fault and sometimes it's the driver's fault - the difference depends on how early the driver 'should' have known.