> are you asserting this is the way things should work, or how they do work, or both?

How it does and, to a limited degree, how it should.

If you donate to or volunteer for a non-profit, you have non-pecuniary interest in how they are run.

If you're sold a product that's promised to be made in a certain way, you do too. If you paid for--much less used without paying--a service because you thought it was ethical per some definition, but aren't similarly bound in other purchases in your life, or otherwise can't show this is a value you consistently follow (and so, in being denied it here, have been damaged), I'm not sure any functional economy can work where anyone has a free option to take back a purchase--or much less, non-monetary use--at any time in the future because they feel--but can't materially demonstrate--betrayal.

Like, maybe if Stallman used ChatGPT he could credibly claim he wouldn't have used it if it hadn't marketed its claims around goodness. But I'm deeply sceptical a rando has the same standing.