Scott Granneman is unclear on the concept here:

The key distinction for me is this: I don’t like it when large corporations make wide-ranging decisions for users that disadvantage those that the corporations choose not to favor. So, for instance, I like the Firefox Greasemonkey extension, but I don’t like AutoLink. Both change the contents of web pages in users’ caches, in radical ways (in fact, Greasemonkey is perhaps more radical than AutoLink). However, AutoLink only changes links in ways that Google approves and provides; Google in effect, then, becomes the gatekeeper for e-commerce and communication. For example, AutoLink automatically changes all ISBNs to point to Amazon.com, which sounds great, but what if you don’t use Amazon? What if you like Barnes & Noble? Or BookPool? Or even better, you wish to support your local independent bookstore’s web site? AutoLink provides no way to change this, which means that Google’s decisions about links are immutable, and the company now has strong influence over the purchasing decisions of millions of its users.

Which part of "Then don't install the stupid tool" is unclear here? Does it come pre-installed? No. Do you have to go out of your way to get it? Yes. Does it operate without your consent? No. What's hard about that? This "I don't like it when they do it, but it's ok when some other guy does it" thing is just... stupid. Gatekeeper? Only if you want them to be Scott. There's an easy way to prevent AutoLink from doing things you don't like: Don't install it, or uninstall it if you have it. I suppose that changing the channel during commercials is a major hurdle for Scott too.