Your reply is the kind of truth that minimizes honest response to active harm, like a mom telling her crying child, "I didn't hit you that hard" when it's the strike itself that is the problem.
It really isn't. Facebook and Zuckerberg worked hard to get Trump into power. It's naive pomposity of the highest order to suggest that they some shouldn't have the right to remove content not suited to their agenda.
I would argue that if something is illegal but it is acceptable, right, good, or moral, (depending on which reference framework is appropriate) a decent person or corporation should commit that crime as often as is frugally possible, e.g. "Robin Hood and his band of Merry Men"
Vice versa, that mythical decent corporation person should not do things that are legal if they are not acceptable, or right, or good, or moral, no matter what other incentives are attached to that action, e.g "Facebook doing an authoritarianism to erase objections".
Thusly, when "Facebook does an authoritarianism" is the topic of conversation, we can say, "Facebook is bad" without wannabe Cartmans showing up in a psychological crossdress yelling, "uh uh, I do what I want" on behalf of the un-decent corporation.
Agreed, and none of which invalidates my comment - it's a platform operated by an organisation that employ whatever rules and justifications, no matter how specious, that they see fit. What it most definitely isn't is an immutable historical record, and anyone making claims to that effect is deluded or naieve.