free has 20+ definitions.[1] A discussion about what we mean when we say Google's services are (or are not) free is using free the same way we use it in free as in beer [thus its definition is relevant].
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 top sentence is granted - not sure it was ever in question.
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."
I didn't downvote but you may want to read HN's Guidelines[1], particularly: Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
The challenge (no complaint here, though I do believe it was down(modded?) merely because of disagreement and not for relevance or quality) was meant to incite more on topic discussion.
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.
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."
[1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/free