I agree that people should treat their users with respect, but your post goes far beyond that. You even say that a service offering full data portability and plenty of warning to its users if it's unable to continue is not good enough. Like, what more can we reasonably offer? I'm offering you something valuable for free and being completely honest with you, but still I'm a jerk for not making a lifetime commitment? That isn't rational.
And to be honest: I guess you could say I feel a sense of entitlement as the person offering a free service. If I offer my girlfriend a massage, I feel entitled to not give everybody else on the planet a massage as well. If I bring donuts to work, I feel entitled to not bring an unlimited supply of donuts forever. Of course, people wouldn't normally call this "entitlement" — only on the Net do people feel like I'm being "entitled" if I won't work for them for free.
The logic here is simple. If you provide a service, you have a moral obligation to treat those who use it with some modicum of respect. You obviously see some gain in being in the business or you wouldn't be there.
To say that I don't "consider the obvious" assumes that I've managed to put into a short blog post all my thoughts on the subject, again hardly a fair observation. I agree that if you have information that is valuable, you should pay for its storage and use or have it backed up. But that is obviously not true of a huge percentage of Internet users.
I don't advocate regulation. I wonder out loud if that's a viable solution. There are other approaches, such as a non-profit escrow system of some sort.
I just don't think it's considerate or in one's own enlightened self-interest to behave as if users of your free service are entitled to expect nothing. That just feels like a dishonorable way to do business.