> > define open source
> denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified.
Being honest, I didn't examine the OSD closely when writing the comment, but I still feel AGPL might violate rule #10 for the open source criterion.[0]
However, it's much more clear cut going over to the free software side.[1] Specifically, the explanatory text in the free software philosophy states: "The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity."
The AGPL requires that you communicate your use of the software, and further forces you to provide access to the source code. For unmodified copies, it might be sufficient to link back to an upstream project. As soon as you modify even a single line, you must now provide your own fork, which will involve setting up some sort of infrastructure. That's assuming that the source code still exists (you might be surprised how often it's lost).
> considering these facts, your opinion is honestly ... pretty dumb.
100% disagree :)
[0] https://opensource.org/osd/
[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html