When an entity brings so little value to a situation that its disappearance would not be noticed (and would not even call for a replacement (which is much stronger than the usual "no one is irreplaceable")), assigning a value of zero to that entity is tempting, but wrong.

For example, no user of Google is critical, and should the average user no longer use Google, (s)he would not even need to be replaced… Erroneous conclusion: average 'users' are not 'consumers,' they pay nothing for using tools provided, so any average user is basically worth nothing.

Counter-argument: Google would not exist without users. Users do pay Google, not in cash but in data. Not just any data: data which may be monetized by Google (thanks to advertisers), data which can feed a "knowledge graph" thus help google deliver good results to users thus help Google keep users and attract new users who will keep feeding marketable data… Data such as a number of hits is marketable already(!) and Google has many ways to aggregate higher-value data.

Google is worth a lot (thanks to its data-to-cash transformation), but the number of users of Google is finite. Any finite number multiplied by zero equals zero, so the average user clearly cannot be worth zero (regardless of the fact the user does not pay in cash for his/her 'free' use of google tools).

Another counter-argument: it should be obvious that the cost of providing 'free' tools to its users is very expensive for Google. Given this is a for-profits company, the idea that Google is simply generous (to such magnitude) is ridiculous: the only reason why Google provides such services for free is that the data provided by the user is worth even more money… To collect higher-value data simply requires higher-value tools for the users.

Conclusion: the idea that 'users' of Google tools should never complain or are not entitled to a 'consumer service' (because they don't pay in cash) is far from a given.