Yeah, that is a great mental heuristic: the majority is always fair and right. I am sure the Jews thought that back in 1930’s Germany. And the Christians in Rome, the Kolacks in Russia, the intellectuals in Mao's China, the wealthy Cubans when Castro took over and blacks in the US before the civil rights movement.
You grant too much. The people who are making these deplatforming decisions do not represent a majority or anything close to it. Perhaps they believe they will when their cultural revolution is complete and the dust has settled, but that has yet to be seen.
The equivalence is not in the persecution but on the validity of an heuristic that that dictates you are an asshole if a powerful majority says you are.
Very few people are hand-wringing over the nonavailability of large child pornography sites and such. The problem is that not everyone has to believe you're horrible to get you booted off the internet - you just have to become sufficiently vile to a narrow, highly-polarized elite strata of society.
The NYT did not apologize for printing Tom Cotton's op-ed because it was outside of a broad Overton Window, but because it's a captured institution. A lot of tech firms face similar issues, whereby trying to hobble the speech channels of political enemies (even those with very broad support) is not only seen as acceptable but morally necessary.
Not everyone thinks they are horrible, and for the many that do they are relying on the media saying that they played a part in the Capitol riots. I haven't actually seen any data showing what was posted on Parler or what evidence was used to justify shutting them down.
Don't forget...just because everyone thinks something is good, doesn't mean that everyone isn't wrong. Hitler was Time magazine's man of the year...less than a year before he started WW2.
at some point too when you notice that everyone thinks you are horrible maybe the problem is you.