The real question is, why FSF isn't stepping up and resolving this issue once and for good?
They must've heard about the problem. Why won't they make a statement about intended reading of AGPLv3 and publish AGPLv4 that has improved wording that avoids any possible ambiguities?
They can say what they intended to mean, and while that won't become a part of the license, a court may consider that. Especially if this would get widespread as "not tested but meant as a canon interpretation" common knowledge.
To put it in other words, clarifying won't hurt, even if it could have no real effect.
But, yeah, the real way to fix is AGPLv4. And FSF surely can do this.
They must've heard about the problem. Why won't they make a statement about intended reading of AGPLv3 and publish AGPLv4 that has improved wording that avoids any possible ambiguities?