No, it's not. AWS is saying "we don't believe that your volunteer moderators are gonna do their jobs, and you've already screwed up, and your CEO is out there saying he thinks this doesn't matter." That's a very different thing than "thou must have professional moderators".
Professional moderation is an option, but what you are actually obliged to do is ensure that your platform is not a hotbed of violent content. There are a lot of approaches to that, including aggressive bans of nuts before they get a critical mass. Given that Parler is where the nuts go when they get booted off Twitter, that was never in the cards.
Yep, I do think it's more of this and dealing with things on a case-by-case basis to asses a company's stance as opposed to setting a precedent. I have a hard time imagining aws booting off a company that is making a good faith attempt at moderation.
Professional moderation is an option, but what you are actually obliged to do is ensure that your platform is not a hotbed of violent content. There are a lot of approaches to that, including aggressive bans of nuts before they get a critical mass. Given that Parler is where the nuts go when they get booted off Twitter, that was never in the cards.