If you trade data for a service it is not free.
To consider "free" a function only of fiat currency is naive, both of history and of economics.
Google search is not free.
If it is I have no idea how they made so much money...
Or maybe you can tell me what 'free actually means'?
Besides, I believe the original point made still makes sense if "free" is assumed to mean "non paid".
I would agree with the assertion that there are practically no free websites on the web. Since when did we convince ourselves we can get things for free?
There are major exceptions. Wikipedia is for the most part free. It does not advertise to you, nor does it siphon and sell your data. It does not track you around the web, it does not sell your Wikipedia viewing behavior to urchin for cents. It is driven by donations.
HN also appears legitimately free to me. As far as I know YCombinator does not mine or sell your data or collect data other that what is required for the forum to be a forum. YCombinator makes its money by other means. It certainly benefits by cultivating a technical online community, which is why I think it does it - though what influence YC can/does project on the community could be thought of as a social cost (I know very little to nil about whether or how much this is done).
Google, however, is not one of these cases. Nor is most of the web.
I'm not sure if the original point still makes sense with 'non paid' (nor am I sure 'non paid' is right). The original point uses 'free' (in caps) to emphasize a sense of charity they use to inform their 'entitled' argument. First, their argument is essentially 'What you expect this to be free? You are entitled!' Second, I'm not sure that replacing the term will work, unless it also communicates charity.
The point here is that the exchange does not constitute charity. Google thinks the trade is a very good deal. Presumably internet surfers do too. But there is an exchange and that needs to be recognized.
Anyway this means that any term that communicates 'charity' will be ignorant of the conditions of how Google's service works - and I would have posted the same misgivings.
These are the things the searcher trades for the service.
I would also posit that Google looks and does nothing like that fisherman.
Given their scale and resources, Google are able to provide a far more effective bot detector than any of us could do on our own. I for one am delighted they are providing this very valuable service.
You may argue that the trade is in the website reader's best interest. This is a different argument than whether it is free.
I can agree Google is not providing a free pure-search-results service, but they do provide a free search results + ads service. Whether getting relevant results + [relevant] ads is a worth anything to you - even $0 - is a separate question, but it's a stretch to frame as an exchange. It's like taking a free hot dog and complaining it's not free because you traded your time & taste buds eating the bun while you only wanted the sausage... [I'd buy it more for e.g. youtube pre-video ads, where you are forced to give attention and time to the ad first.]
Now my data is a better point. Very valid for the totality of google services; quite weak for logged-out search use. If you work answering questions, and recording the questions that get asked and where they came from, then yes I did hand you this data but it's almost inherent in asking the question.
[Disclaimer: I'm a xoogler. And all this is nit-picking.]
This conversation is about the meaning of 'money' modulo this understanding of free-as-in-beer - i.e. whether non-fiat scarce resources (user data/screen real estate) count as money.
Colloquially we usually use free to mean not having a financial cost. Another word or phrase is usually used when referring to non-monetary costs. i.e. I would say "Google is free" but I would never say "Google costs nothing."
The bottom part you use personal anecdotes to support the claim that a broader 'we' do something. I'm not sure, as my personal experience differs. But it does get to exactly what I was saying in the above comment - what the discussion centers about is what counts as 'money' (as you say "referring to non-monetary costs").
I think the place we differ is whether non-fiat scarce resources count as money. I think they do. Historically they have. In economics literature and practice they do.
Or perhaps the reservation is that the scarce resources in this instance are 'soft' resources like attention, screen real estate and personal data? Much of what is traded by financial institutions (for example) today are very virtual - trades of risks, credits (promises), futures, bets. Even real estate is traded on the idea that it occupies space of human attention and investment - not necessarily because it can be used as a means to 'produce' something. I'm hesitant to draw firm lines between these soft assets - I'm not sure where I could sensibly draw them.
Either way, I'm glad we agree that Google costs something. I do think that the OP intended their use of free (in capitals and context) to mean "Google costs nothing."
It's interesting I've never read the guidelines before now. Was refreshing to have taken a look, although it's mostly common sense and etiquette.
You trade your data, screen real estate, and attention for their service. This is worth a lot - Google is worth a lot. They didn't do it by giving out services for free.