If this weren't the case, then every web server running linux would have to offer their users the source code to linux. Seems pretty silly, probably most software shouldn't be AGPL.
AGPL is best used by projects that want to offer dual licensing for a fee, so they can get corporations to fund their development.
Most software probably should be AGPL licensed and its use is best for projects who want to protect what ought to be basic human rights which unfortunately aren't enshrined in law.
Oh give me a break. What basic human rights are being violated by Linux being licensed with the GPL? GPLv3 would be a nice improvement, but human rights violations for it not being AGPL??
I'm not a huge fan of AGPL but I think being "silly" is the least of my worries. A few redundant github links on the about page is a small cost for getting open source to stay actually open in the era of cloud services.
I do agree that it's "best" used in that kind of dual licensing, but I wish companies were less allergic to it so it could be used in general purpose ways. (It or a lawyer-friendly alternative.)
AGPL is best used by projects that want to offer dual licensing for a fee, so they can get corporations to fund their development.