Why shouldn't I? I created a product and I should be able to choose who do I give it to.
I want it to be as open as possible while restricting some types of usage I don't like, or that would be detrimental to the continuation of the project itself.
I don't see anything outlandish in my statement.
I can understand why people would prefer FAANG & Co. weren't re-selling their FOSS, but I don't see how you can pick and choose who has access to and is allowed to run your code, and still be open source. Maybe you could have an application process, where you decide to give a license on a case-by-case basis, that can be rescinded later. But I'm not confident you'd get much traction.
The OP's point is that product owners want the benefits of being open source, but are frustrated with the downsides. You can't have one without the other, they are two sides of the same coin.
I think the sunshine and rainbows idealism of some of the licences and OSS gatekeeping was fine 20 years ago, and works fine for certain kinds of software and mature, well-established projects (compilers, Postgres, MySQL etc) but these days, no longer fits the reality of the software landscape.
But it's technically not open source since there are usage restrictions, and considered "source available" which isn't descriptive enough IMO.