Not in terms of the minimum 3 game ban, no. As established by the Cavani ruling. Regardless of intent, or complete ignorance of any possible offence, the very fact offence has been caused is, apparently, enough to justify the minimum 3 game ban. Any more would be for any perceived intent, which is a matter of opinion on his motives.
Many of the arguments used here to defend Fernandinho - 'it wasn't his intent, he was ignorant of how his tweet could be taken, people shouldn't assume just because something is huge to them that it must be known to others' - all applied in the Cavani situation, and were recognised by the FA, and yet the rules still dictated that, despite all that, it merited the minimum 3 game ban.
Nothing that anyone has said so far in Fernandinho's defence has explained the difference between the two - given the FA's acknowledgement of Cavani's complete lack of awareness and intent - as to why an apology would suffice for Fernandinho but wasn't enough for Cavani.