I believe that I have the right to demand that someone else doesn't use their time to burglarize my house, and if they and other companies have made a side business of burglarizing peoples houses, I think it's entirely resonable to demand that they and any similar company spend time proving that they aren't planning to continue.

(And yes, I realize the houses in this metaphor rarely have doors in their doorways, much less locks, so it's techinally not burglary, but frankly I don't care.)

That analogy makes no sense.

The proper analogy would be: You invite a volunteer carpenter in to fix your cabinets. He asks if he can write down what cereal your family eats instead of taking payment. You say sure! (ie agree to the terms of service).

New law passes. He refuses to come back and fix your cabinets for free next time because he doesn’t want to get sued for writing down the cereal names improperly.

You then scream at him and call him names, and try to ruin his reputation on the internet and accuse him of being a thief.

Maybe if the sanctity of what cereal your family eats is so important to you, you should just directly pay money to a normal carpenter next time?

>He refuses to come back and fix your cabinets for free next time

First, Instapaper is a continuous service. If you store something, you want access to it again. It's not a series of one-off, independent services.

So, no, they didn't just "refused to come back and fix your cabinets for free next time". They gave you a space to write your notes and store your links, and then they denied access to that for 2 months (and counting).

Second, you forgot the part where Instapaper had paid services for years, and that many people who are denied service today, had paid good money and stick with it. They weren't asked if they wanted it to br made free and unreliable either.

>I could understand the outrage if this was a service you were paying for.

So, if Gmail was closed to the free tier European users for 2 months+, they should be OK, because "they didn't pay for it"?

>But this is a Free service being provided to you. Why do you believe you have the right to dictate how someone else uses their time when you're not paying for it?

That's an argument for the 1950s economy, this is 2018. We have other models, such as ads, user profiling, even pure eyeballs as a M&A/IPO monetisation strategies. Just because the user doesn't paid doesn't mean money aren't made from the user using the service. Except if one believe they run it from the goodness of their hearts at a loss, but then they probably also believe in the Tooth Fairy.

Not to mention that Instapaper used to actually charge too. If someone paid for the app or premium later for years, is it ok if they "make it free" and then deny access to their account for 2 months?