As much as this happens, I don't feel it's something to be expected or even okay.
The major cloud services are expensive. This extra cost is supposed to provide for cloud services' high level of flexibility. Running out of capacity should be a rare event and treated as a high priority problem to be fixed asap.
Without the ability to rapidly and arbitrarily scale, they're just overpriced server farms.
A big thing I think is left out is how deeply personally invested people get in the language(s) and tool(s) they use. Technical discussions around those things become perceived as personal attacks and reasonable discussion is impossible.
The GDPR covers tracking of users, but is much more broad in scope. Simply not tracking users doesn't stop the GDPR from applying.
The GDPR provides a framework by which bad actors can do their thing legally without too much trouble. To a good actor, who only stores the data they actually need and doesn't track users, the GDPR still applies and is just as big a pain in the ass.
This is what Mozilla does. They did it with Mozilla, then Phoenix(now Firefox) saved them. Did they learn anything from that and keep developing Firefox as the best browser? Of course not, they slowly turned Firefox back into Mozilla.
People complain about Google and Chrome/Chromium for turning the browser market back into a monoculture, but it's just as much Mozilla's own fault for failing to keep up. I want to use Firefox, I want to LIKE Firefox, but Mozilla has for years now decided not to prioritize making Firefox a great browser.
AWS/Azure/etc. are just not the place to get up a low cost personal server. I think the free tier confuses people into trying it, but ultimately what you get is a tiny VM with limited services that is designed for you to rapidly outgrow.
That's okay though, because that's not why the big clouds are valuable. I'm going to refer specifically to AWS, but I also include Azure, GCP, etc. AWS is not cheap. If you only need a single host, or a small fixed group of hosts, AWS is an expensive option with little to justify the added cost. What you're paying for with AWS isn't just the resources you use, but the resources AWS keeps available for use at a moment's notice. If you don't have that need to scale your resources up and down, the costs of using AWS become harder to justify.
If the goal is to do it on the cheap, a $5/mo vps is going to do better than the AWS free tier. If you need more power, the price gap between a bare metal private server and an equivalent AWS instance just gets bigger as the server gets more powerful.
This is my concern as well. They're becoming victims of their own success with knockoffs and scammers increasingly gaming the system. Everything from knockoffs piggybacking on real listings, to entire lines of products being dominated by no-name Chinese companies throwing armies of shills at the reviews.
Amazon figuring out how to deal with the problem is critical for their future.