Yeah, if you don't think there is a problem with lowering the requirements, that means you think it's ok to lower the requirements.

Because you're not losing out on imaginary "significantly more qualified than John Carmack" applicants.

should worry about -> do think there is a problem with

shouldn't worry about -> don't think there is a problem with

How are those the same?

I think these can actually mean the same thing here, it depends if the thing you're passing judgement on is interpreted to be the requirements, or the act of lowering the requirements.

You should worry about the requirements because they're bad and need fixing.

You shouldn't worry about the consequences of lowering the requirements because you weren't enforcing them anyway.

No one said "should worry about" they said "should think about".

"shouldn't worry about about 'lowering them.'" -> don't think there is a problem with lowering them.

"probably SHOULD think about 'lowering them.'" -> should think about lowering them.

"If the smoke alarm goes off, you shouldn't worry about evacuating the building."

Is this an acceptable way to convey that you should evacuate the building without worrying?

> "If the smoke alarm goes off, you shouldn't worry about evacuating the building."

> acceptable

It's a gratuitously ambiguous way to convey that you should evacuate the building without worrying.