Well, their original reasoning still applies. They banned him for what they perceived as threats of violence. If it were anybody else, Meta wouldn't be coming to them and saying, "If you've learned your lesson you're welcome to return."
More to the point, if I were Meta, I'd be keeping a very close eye on it come November. We know that people are scanning his words closely and looking to use them a call to violence. I would be prepared to shut it down in short order if something looked suspicious.
Not that that will solve anything, of course, since there are plenty of other channels available. But it might help keep them out of trouble.
they should not do that because Meta is not a platform for constitutionally-allowed free speech, instead, they are a platform for selective filtering.
So let them stay that way. It is good to have the moral clarity of what they do, enforced by their actions.
It much more beneficial for the society today, and for the future -- that the political actors have their masks off.
I am not trying to suggest that Meta is good or bad, I am just happy that we see Zuckerberg and other billionaires with the mask off, same for many others.
>they should not do that because Meta is not a platform for constitutionally-allowed free speech, instead, they are a platform for selective filtering.
"Selective filtering" by private platforms like Facebook (I will die on the hill of refusing to call it Meta) is constitutionally allowed free speech.
