This feels a lot like when i hear about "GPL" abuse when it was specifically not designed for what people think is abuse (and that's not my view but stallman's).
Similarly, AGPL was not designed to require every piece of software around a piece of AGPL software to be open sourced.
Deliberately so. Not doing so is not "abuse".
You may have different goals, and that's actually fine! But it doesn't make following the license and what it was meant for abuse.
I'll also point out: In the history of my work on open source, by far the largest legal abusers of open source are startups. By many orders of magnitude. This is real abuse in the sense of clear license non-compliance. I worked on M&A at a variety of companies that acquired all sorts of different kind/stages of startups.
They rarely are compliant with even simple notice licenses (IE don't bother to post notices), let alone any of the more restrictive licenses.
Large corps often have legal departments that try to understand and consider and figure out what to do, even if they do it wrong.
So to me, every time i hear "large company open source abusers" i kind of laugh, because IMHO getting the startups to stop abusing open source would have a much more significant difference on OSS than getting 2 or 3 large companies to stop "abusing" it.