Correct. I think the one thing that is "owed", if that is even the right word, is that you don't knowingly put malicious software out there. But that's it.

If a public software is very far off from working as advertised, effectively demonstrating bad faith, if its code is being hosted on a social hosting site, you can bet that I will complain about it to the site, and get everyone else to complain as well. If the software is no longer being developed and has been dead for years, then it's a different story, and the intent then is to move elsewhere. The license file is not an excuse using which to hide lies.

You are forgetting something, which is that if the code is hosted on a social site, e.g. GitHub, many additional rules apply.

Gross misrepresentation of one's software will earn complaints to GitHub. It is the responsibility of the author that the repo's readme does not ovepromise and underdeliver.

With the caveat that author is a role, not a person. The same person may have further responsibilities in other roles. In particular, if you distribute the software directly to consumers, consumer protection laws may override some license terms.