Unfortunately the term Gold Open Access has been co-opted by the publishers. When the OA movement was using the term, they meant "published open access by the publisher, rather than posting alternative editions elsewhere (Green OA)". The publishers then started using it to mean author-pays Open Access.
Thus, when OA advocates use the term Gold OA, that gets interpreted the way you do above - whereas they usually intend for the fees to be low or non-existent, for authors. Some have started to use Diamond or Platinum OA for that, but it's hard to get that to stick now.
The point is: there are definitely Open Access models possible where publishing does not entail thousands of dollars of publication costs. This has been proven by many quality journals already.
Sure, but unfortunately this is what it's become. I generally use the Green/Gold/Diamond split, where my own preferences go along the lines of diamond > green > gold. 'Diamond' journals exist, but they are rare.
Thus, when OA advocates use the term Gold OA, that gets interpreted the way you do above - whereas they usually intend for the fees to be low or non-existent, for authors. Some have started to use Diamond or Platinum OA for that, but it's hard to get that to stick now.
The point is: there are definitely Open Access models possible where publishing does not entail thousands of dollars of publication costs. This has been proven by many quality journals already.