The OSI has routinely sided with big tech companies who build proprietary platforms over the needs of companies trying to build entirely open source companies in a sustainable way. I have little to no faith in the OSI or its value to open software, I find it a tiring gatekeeper, and every conversation I've had with OSI leadership has pushed me even further into that conviction.
If the OSI was truly interested in spreading open source, its sole focus would be in developing a license that allows the sustainable development of open source code outside of a FAANG.
Such a license wouldn't be compatible with the Open Source Definition, but they could encourage cultural and other practices to enable sustainable FOSS production. The GPL is hard enough to get people to comply with and not outright ignore, Ethical Source licenses like what you suggest are going to have an even harder time enforcing compliance.
Bluntly: If the Open Source Definition says it's better to let Amazon put open source companies out of business while producing lock-in proprietary services than ask Amazon to support open source, the Open Source Definition is broken and we should clear out any entities in the way of fixing it.
The OSI exists not to spread open source, but preserve Google and Amazon's access to free labor.
Open Source was never about guaranteeing company profits. You're just putting one company above another, while ignoring that one company was the user and open source is about user rights. The companies that pretended to be open source for a while to get access to free labor and marketing are not one bit better than Amazon or Google.
If the OSI was truly interested in spreading open source, its sole focus would be in developing a license that allows the sustainable development of open source code outside of a FAANG.