Probably a better disambiguation would be "services" that are free. Open-source projects can always be validated to make sure that they are not monetizing their user-base.
Tor is a service but by reading the source code, you can see (if you understand the code) that nothing monetizable leaves your computer.
I don't have as much confidence in Tox just because it hasn't been around as long (and I haven't read the source).
Wikipedia is a service puts up a huge banner every year asking you to please give them money if you don't want them to be forced to show advertisements, implicitly making you the product.
I say, the lengths people go to justify a trite thought-terminating cliché don't fail to astonish me.
If the mere possibility than a service you use might in the future have ads is sufficient to justify the phrase "you are the product", then I don't see how anything can be an exception to that. After all, the next release of Tor might have ads! Who knows?
TOR isn't free. The support and development is paid for by donations and funding, the bandwidth (currently over 12000 MiB/s) is paid for by lot's of volunteers. I get your point though. The question isn't whether something is free to use, it's who's paying for incurring costs.
