Ignoratio Elenchi: refuting an opponent while actually disproving something not asserted.
Your opponent was elaborating on the original claim that "If any American Government official requesting a removal of anything from social media sites would probably lose their job", then "AOC should also lose her job when she requested removal of Parler"
Your counter argument, "I'm sure AOC's demand was critical in their decision to ban such a vibrant, positive application" is an unfair redirection of what your opponent was asserting.
AOC doesn't have a job to be fired from, she has a position that she was elected to.
And a public plea for a company to take a certain course of action is different than a direct request. The latter carries much more "or else" subtext. An upset Congressperson doesn't carry the same potential for immediate disaster as having the DOJ on your back.