You're right that this will be damn near impossible to enforce except in the most stupidly obvious cases.
Also, plenty of people complained about Pornhub being forced to take down content. You were either in a bubble, it's not paying attention. Specifically, that it appears that if you want to avoid getting bullied by online activists through your providers, you also seem to need to have your own bank.
Reading greenwald's take on it I come to feel that it seems likely that this cabal of corporate hegemons, utilized multiple private intelligence security firms to stoke and instigate the riot for the purposes of destroying their competitor as well as sending a message to people who dared utilize that app instead of one of the conventional apps that you're not safe if you do that. it was an extremely effective and coordinated campaign and I respect their ingenuity and will to dominance. fledgling startups should be aware of these sort of tactics and take steps to mitigate them for their own success, but I think aside from the purely political and free speech problems that poses I think and the important corporate monopolistic issues are companies should not be delivering these negative results for consumers who want to choose to use an alternate app, they shouldn't be using their monopoly power nor coordinating with other monopolies in order to shut out a competitor.
Perhaps this operation was a favor to the incoming administration who promised to go soft on the antitrust stuff if the techs would pull off this coup against these politically inconvenient free speech enabling technologies that go against the dominant ideology advocated by the group trying to maintain control. Win win.
Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself (i.e. the American colloquial phrase, "Everyone is out to get me").
It is unclear how this could be enforced in the internet domain, but maybe the website could have huge fines levied against it or criminal charges levied against the founders (so not the posters) if its possible to prove violent intent. Its also not a very slippery slope. We have hate crime laws, but they are notoriously hard to prove. I imagine violent intent on the internet will be similarly hard to prove and only be applied to the extremely obvious cases.
Its also a bit weird. Nobody made a huge deal about PornHub (from what I can tell) being forced to take down tons of content due to Visa, because guess what. Its hard to disagree that the source of a lot of content on PornHub is troubling and very likely illegal. This isn't that much different from what Amazon and other companies are doing to Parler. The intent of a lot of posters (even if its a minority) seems to be to incite violence. Parler actively didn't try to monitor the content and boom, it got taken down. I imagine if PornHub didn't make a good faith attempt to remove a lot of content, we'd have seen Amazon (or whoever hosts PornHub).