I read occasionally that fracking causes earthquakes, too. While there is controversy around fracking, I see the systematic de-stressing of the earth's surface as a benefit.
Those of us in geological fields totally disagree with you. If you start a small earthquake in San Andreas, say up in the northwestern section, you can trigger a full-length chain reaction that culminates in unleashing the big one which will rip all the way through Mexico. What is worse is that the earthquake will get stronger as it propagates along the fault line. What you call the big one in the northwest section where it all began is thousands of times weaker than what gets felt further down the fault.
It might not ever hit. Crustal rocks can permanently store tremendous amounts of energy as stress; if the stress is changing, the fault might only move enough to release some small delta of the total stored stress. But: grease the system and you might release a lot more, and all at once.
It's very hard to predict what will happen, either naturally or human-triggered. IMO this is a good argument to not rush it. Every day that passes gives us more time to understand and prepare.
Apparently the rest of them are mostly caused by a similar process of injecting wastewater deep under ground. Of course, fracking is a major producer of wastewater, so it is therefore an indirect cause of many more than 1-2% of induced quakes.
There is also the question of what happens now that it has been released. Rocks are all connected, so a release of stress in one place might result in movement somewhere else eventually.
BTW it is difficult to measure stress in crustal rocks remotely, without releasing some of it. So all of this is hard to know, and therefore hard to account as risk in new hydraulic injection projects.