My point is what this guy seems to want to enable is fundamentally conspiring to commit crimes.
He seems to talk around that, but that's where we are.
That said, there are plenty of websites that do conspire to do illegal acts and seem to get away with it, for a time at least. (pirate bay, sci-hub are two im ok with ethically. The silk road is an example im less ok with)
Parler was blocked only after there was clear evidence that criminal activity was being openly planned on their platform and that planning was acted on.
It's not out of the realm of possibility that enough people have that view and decide that I and/or my company need to be shamed, shunned, and shut down. What do I do then? I've done nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical but a group of people have decided I need to lose everything simply because I joined a fraternity.
That view in particular has already happened once, by the way. It could easily happen again.
I say all that to say this: I think OP's question is what happens when it takes less than criminal activity to get kicked off of vendors such as AWS?
Right now I have my own virtual machine for my web services. There are half a dozen of similarly affordable, neutral platforms not owned or affiliated with Amazon. Even my opinion were unpopular in the US, I could host in the EU, Canada, or Sweden.
What are you trying to mitigate?
You can't mitigate "Getting banned for making a place to plan a coup". You can't mitigate "I want a place to allow posts advocating criminal activity".
If people were openly discussing breaking and entering houses, should that be allowed too?
Why should we tolerate publicly planning violence when we don't tolerate publicly planning other crimes?