[matthewdgreen]

Real answer?

Because helpful technologists are the interface between less knowledgeable users and services like Google. We’re the power users and “mavens” who are both highly exposed to the product and have some understanding of what’s going wrong and how it might be made better. We also spend a lot more time talking to that product’s engineering staff than the typical user (see e.g. the fact that we’re here on HN.)

When helpful technologists opt out of the problematic aspects of a product by uttering some magic incantation, we essentially remove ourselves from having to be annoyed by the product’s rough edges. This means we’re less likely to help improve the service for everyone, and we’re probably more likely to incorporate similar carelessness into the things we make ourselves.

[edoceo]

How could a technologist, who's not in charge of the $BigTech be able to fix the problem? They can't. So, they offer the user a work-around. Then, the user never complains to $BigCo because of the Help and still nothing gets done. And later, we complain that we're not fixing $BigCo and we're all mad at "the help".

How, really, could you improve the Google service for everyone?

[matthewdgreen]

How many Google Search* engineers saw this article on HN? I guarantee the number is greater than zero.

* Or people who talk to Search engineers regularly, etc.

[wizzwizz4]

Acausal decision theory, given the assumption that you have the same decision-making algorithm as the technologists in charge of $BigTech. (The assumption's completely invalid, so it doesn't actually work.)

[npteljes]

I see your point. Working around abusive behaviour, and accepting that as a solution, just enables further abuse. I don't think we can influence said engineers here on HN. I know for a fact that I personally wouldn't be influenced, and I also think that if the product managers will want something, then it will get done, no matter what people write here.