I disagree that this argument is absurd. They are helping you correct your typing mistakes, and the fee is not charged to you, but if it is a paid link, paid by the advertiser, which the owner gets a very small portion. The more popular the site, the more spelling mistakes will occur.
This only corrects spelling for sites that are willing to pay for traffic, and in cases where there are multiple sites lexically nearby, you get the one that pays the most. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't find any value in selling my eyeballs like that, and there are plenty of useful sites that don't pay for traffic at all. Look at my www.abuse.net, for example, with a budget of $0. R's, John
Is it a question of stability, or just someone doing something we don't like to see?
I certainly consider it to be a stability issue. Every month fifty million domains appear, sit parked for 4.99 days, then disappear. Most of them are typosquats, misspelling of established domains. Speculators have argued that all these squats provide a service: they usually have a paid link to the domain the user actually wanted, and if you land on the squat, you or your search engine must have made a mistake which they are helping you rectify for a small fee.
I find this argument absurd. If I want my spelling corrected (which I do, being a lousy typist), I want to use a corrector of my choice, triggered off an NXDOMAIN response in my browser, not some random speculator. And, of course, the squats are of no help fixing typos in mail and all the other Internet services other than the web.