>I think the "free" model enables providers to shrug and go "hey you don't pay us" (if there is support at all -- I've never been able to speak to a human about this issue)

I also have paid services a lot of money where customer service was nonexistent until I did a credit card chargeback or raised an issue with government regulators.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what I want to push my state legislature to encode into law with regards to customer service minimums that would cover anyone doing business in the state, free or paid.

I'm in the camp that paying makes you a customer. Inversely using a free service makes you a user, not a customer.

And as you correctly note, there I'd no "user service" department.

You can of course push for any law you like, but I expect laws protecting "users" to be toothless. Basically the TOS will boil down to "we can do anything we like" - which I guess is more or less what they say now.

I find it helpful to think of users as distinct from customers because it let's you understand the provider company motivations.

For example, Google's customer's are advertisers. Hence they cull services not conducive to advertising.

Most startups see VCs as the customer. Their business model is to sell shares to VCs in round after round. Seen in that light their attitude to users is rational and users only exist as props to VC sales.

VCs (and founders) are chasing an exit, which is usually acquisition or aquihire. Your use of the service will thus rarely survive the exit.

These are not things to be outraged about. They are all completely rational and predictable outcomes. When you use a service, these are factors you should evaluate.