I don't think companies should all conform to one policy. But the issue here is that facebook had a policy, then refused to enforce it.[1]

[1] "If anyone, including a politician, is saying things that can cause, that is calling for violence or could risk imminent physical harm.... we will take that content down." https://twitter.com/donie/status/1266416129448255489

And I expect different companies will hold different standards as to when content meets that line.

That's not to say I think Facebook or Twitter are consistent - they are far, far from consistent, and you are right to desire to hold them accountable to their own policies.

I made a comment the other day that I thought Twitter was selectively enforcing this policy (I lost Karma pointing it out). I didn't want to assume so I tested. I reported 10 people who called for Trump to be killed or had other calls for violence. Here are some examples, they are all still up 5+ days later. https://twitter.com/Zangetsu8ensa/status/1266385289360089088 https://twitter.com/KllrDave/status/1266390506222891011

I don't think there is any ambiguity in those tweets about calling violence.

Can I just point out that I don't follow anything Trump says on Twitter, but because of the Striesand effect I now know everything about the tweet, what it said, what people think it said, and what it's effects were.

Call me a cynic, but I think that might be the desired intent; the main difference now being that there is the initial framing, which may the only true effect Twitter's policy may have, I think: you will approach the tweet differently if you only see it through that framing.

It will certainly be abused for much more ambiguous things if they continue to hold the policy. If they don't, then they've shown themselves to be political in motivation, which is not good for anyone. So it's a loss all 'round.