The funny thing is that at its core, this argument isn’t even that wrong if you applied it as a criticism of the structure of capitalism itself. Capitalism trends toward monopoly and monopolies will make it impossible for new competitors to get started and do innovation. It’s also true that when something is available for free it stifles growth in the relevant industries, another example of this is how countries that receive food aid will develop their agricultural industry around growing cash crops because farmers won’t be able to compete with the free aid.

But all of that is just an argument against having market forces decide everything in the first place. If society has the capacity in both technology and in productivity to make great services and enough goods for everyone, why would it be necessary for these things to be competed for in the first place? We can just… have free chess and food for everyone, because we have the means to do that and compensate the people who make it happen. There is literally nothing to be gained from it being a competive process.