Without making any commitments that they won't at some point in the future undo that decision, that they see the importance of why there are free accounts, or what they are doing to ensure that community feedback is incorporated into their plans before they make decisions.

Sure, they changed course on this single decision, but they haven't addressed the situation that allowed this to even take place, nor does it look like they are planning on it.

Let's be clear here. Even if a company commits to something in a public statement, it's no guarantee.

Even if the writer of the post explains lessons learned and policy changes they're making, it's no guarantee. The people who learned the lessons can leave the company. Policies can be changed at a moment's notice or simply never be enforced.

The best anyone will get is a contract that can be legally enforced, and that won't ever happen for free users.

(I edited my comment as you were replying, sorry about that.)

If the reflexive maximally-negative complaints are contradicting the actual information presented, they had better come with strong evidence or I’m dismissing them (and I do find those comments more tiresome than press releases or the other negative replies; they come across as conspiratorial crank-cases with an axe to grind, even bordering on spam to my mind).

The comments I had in mind are “the most negative interpretation of the information that comports with the facts”, much like the non-information components of the press release are the most positive interpretation of the information that comports with the facts.

A press release contains info and fluff. The opposite of soft fluff is hard edges, so perhaps a cute and pithy summary of my view is that no fluffy PR statement is complete without an edgy reply.