This has been discussed at ResearchGate several times. Here is a selection of such discussions:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_many_researchers_think_publishers_journals_should_pay_for_their_content_and_also_for_peer_review/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_there_is_ever_going_to_be_a_time_peer_reviewers_will_be_paid_for_their_services_the_time_is_now/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_journals_pay_for_peer_review_work/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_open-access_journals_reviewers_do_not_get_paid_for_their_job/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_dont_journals_pay_reviewers_and_still_sell_publications/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_dont_journals_pay_to_reviewers_as_they_bleed_authors_for_publication_fees/1

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Reviewers_participation_should_be_considered_too/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-are-the-benefits-of-being-a-reviewer-for-a-journal/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Rewarding_the_work_of_the_referees/1

Thanks for the link, Wolfgang. In my case, in addition to focusing on some gimmickry on the part of the publisher claiming that APC is for the benefit of the scientists themselves, I allowed myself to question the very idea of volunteer peer reviewing.

After all, apart from satisfying one's ego and being a little ahead of what will be published, the institution of peer review itself may need to be rethought.

For starters, it would be possible to completely refuse to review papees from those journals that give APCs to their authors without alternative. This could, if not cool the ardor of brazen publishers, at least make them question whether it is worth profiting from scientists.

What’s Wrong with Paying for Peer Review?

"When researchers call for payment for review, we might find that the majority are simply asking for recognition. Because we traditionally recognize work with pay, the ‘demand’ is formed as a request for payment. So, instead of getting into a mess by trying to pay them money, we must work harder on rewarding reviewers with other currencies of academia: reputation, recognition, and success.

We acknowledge that there are indeed many underpaid and overworked people in academia, especially among early career researchers. Paying them for peer review is not going to solve that deeper set of injustices. Let’s tackle those injustices directly instead..."

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2021/06/16/whats-wrong-with-paying-for-peer-review/?informz=1

Thanks for the link to the article, Ljubomir: I remember it, and also remember that the topic of discussion was somewhat narrowed down to financial services. I would see the problem with publishers not so much as paying for the review process or some kind of prestige/reputation (I don't see any benefits here, but I do see a waste of time), but rather creating certain conditions or even principles where journals charge exorbitant APCs but require reviewers to do their work for free. For me, the issue is not about paying for my labor, but specifically about the cost of publishing. And for that matter, let journals pay reviewers not in the form of pay checks, but in the form of a virtual account that compensates for APC (if I remember correctly, NAR and a small number of other journals sometimes do this).