[jrm4]

I can't help but consider the big picture here.

I get that one is trying to be clever and concise, but "Don't make me think" as a core value really sucks; there ought to be some consideration of "the world you're building" when "don't make me think" is a virtue.

(Compare to e.g. "Don't be evil." Has Google always succeeded at this? Of course not, but it feels as if having it in the background has been valuable.)

[st00]

I like that you're thinking about the second order effects of this phrase. That said, I might be wrong, but it seems to me that your argument depends on taking the phrase at face value rather than core value.

I might describe the core value differently: know your audience and focus on their needs, not yours (showmanship, looking busy, ego, etc.). By showing respect for your audience/user, you're helping them be better and more effective. Reduced to a phrase, it means that the audience/user shows up knowing what they want (even if they think they don't), so don't make them suffer for it.

The advice is about interface design, which is principally transactional. It's not social policy so, you know, it works.

When it comes to Google, I think it's important to distinguish the Larry/Sergey/Eric era from the Sundar/Ruth Era.* Old Google was decidedly not evil. One might dislike some of their choices, but they weren't evil.

* Having been there during both, I find it hard to reconcile them as a single company. Changes that started in 2015 only became obvious to many Googlers in the past year or two. It's the late afternoon for them and the morning's hangover is wearing off.

[molotovh]

I think a better (but less concise) way to phrase it is: "I shouldn't have to think to use your interface, because that's bandwidth I won't have available to think about your content." Thinking of this way creates a value proposition for the creator that aligns with the user's goals.