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.
The OSI exists not to spread open source, but preserve Google and Amazon's access to free labor.