My expectation is that he describes his level of personalized service the same way in private emails as in public comments. If you find that expectation overly haughty, well, you know where the refund button is.
I'd be interested to learn more about the moral framework that arrives at such a conclusion.
Broadly speaking, the hacker ethos has relied on a "share and enjoy" metric, a direct reference to a bit from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. People sometimes forget that the bit goes on to offer specific suggestions for those who are receiving something for free and have complaints regarding the flavor directed at the provider.
I think that even if you offer a service for free you are obliged to offer a level of quality and support, much like how you can’t just sell poisonous ice cream. I don’t believe in “share and enjoy” and I don’t think that “warranty free” is morally good
Many or most so-called "free" services, e.g., Twitter, Facebook, etc., are a front for another money-making scheme. If you're not the customer, you're the product.
Hacker News is an advertisement for Y Combinator.
Let's not pretend that this is a charity.
It's also worth noting that the operators of such "free" services don't publicly take the haughty attitude of "if you don't like the service, you can have a refund of $0". You'll never hear that rhetoric from dang. They want people to use their services. Only unaffiliated outside defenders use that rhetoric.