That's where I think people are missing the point to some extent. I'm taking on good faith what was reported by these companies - but their statements claimed they observed actual concrete planning to organise actual violence and further insurrection. Stopping speech is one thing. But the claim is it is not the speech they are worried about, it is the violence. The infrastructure is being used for more than speech. Removing the infrastructure is being done to impede those larger effects.
Does it change the flavor if I rewrite the phrase as
First they came for the murderers and I did not speak out ...
?
I don't think an argument of consistency really works here. Sure that has happened. And possibly in those countries they suffered consequences for their part in that. That does not mean they should not apply those principles in the US, in this instance. All these things are context specific, driven by judgement taking into account the whole circumstances.
It kills the argument that Parler is exclusively used for organizing violence although the insurrection part is where they will have a lot of trouble with specifically because they chose the worst possible place.
The problem is not that that's what it is "exclusively used for". The problem is that AWS asked them to moderate/remove content inciting/planning rape, torture and assassination of named public officials and others and Parler refused to do so.
Does it change the flavor if I rewrite the phrase as