Why is this wrong? It's pure business.
The main argument here is that smaller competition without the funds cannot compete anymore, ultimately leading to few monopolistic companies. You will only have Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Twitter. There is no place for things like startups anymore, because the usage of a small/new/unknown service provider now has even more downsides and getting people to use a new idea will become ever more difficult. On the other hand, since they have the monopol, big companies will change... and you won't like those changes*.
Take a look at the whole discussion from the perspective of a FOSS developer (which you probably are). Why should anyone use your FOSS software, if it is very slow compared to one of the giants, which also doesn't take money. No matter how good and disruptive your product is, you stand no chance. Capitalism sure has its merits, but anyone without money is at a severe disadvantage, if neutrality isn't preserved.
In your case: think Hashnode. SO probably has more funds than Hashnode. So they can strike a deal with the ISPs in the US and everyone will have the same access speed as before. Hashnode might not be able to afford the high prices, so it will be throttled and we will all have a really slow HN experience, even though you optimized Hashnode to be very fast. People in the US might decide to leave HN, because it is annoying to always wait for every little thing to be transmitted. What would your sponsors say if you lost many people in the US?
Maybe it's also a thing of attitude. Maybe I watch too much Star Trek. Imho, the way of the USA is not right. They are capitalistic. Because of that, many people have to suffer. Of course, there are companies which try to act differently by providing lots of free services and software, like Google does (AOSP doesn't even take your personal data as compensation!). I think, trading personal information still is wrong, however it at least enables more people access to those products and services. I think, that's a good direction and through awareness and improvements in the security sector leads to a brighter tomorrow.
I don't see a future for the way we misuse money today, but setting up a new system will probably take decades to centuries, given that important leaders start even thinking about it.
\* (Let's use Intel as an example for what happens to monopoles. Over the last couple of years, their CPUs became absurdly expensive, while at the same time they didn't bring out any new development at all. The production companies shrank the die size and Intel added a few more PCIe lanes. That's the sum of what they managed to deliver while AMD was fighting for survival. I am still on an Ivy Bridge and I don't see any reason why I should switch to a current Intel chip (Kaby Lake) other than burning money. The extensions are the same, the core count is the same, and with OC, the clock speed is better than that of a current stock CPU. IPC have increased slightly, but that's marginal and rather sad for all the time which passed. Comparing my office PC (Skylake) to my home computer, I don't feel any difference in speed)