You're trying to use the definition of a term I used offhand to simplify a legal principle. This doesn't help you position at all, because the law doesn't give a shit about how I summarize it.A financial stakeholder is defined as "groups that stand to benefit if the venture or company succeeds" this very specifically includes "suppliers" which Amazon falls under because it supplies the hosting space for Twitter's servers.
I just used financial stakeholder as a way to say owner or partial owner. That's all. And Amazon isn't the owner or partial owner of twitter or a twitter-like, so this angle of attack won't work at all, other than making a judge laugh. And because of this, Parler (if you read their filing) didn't, because they aren't that stupid. Instead they allege collusion, which is a hail mary.