1) The user you are trying so hard to catch in some contradiction seems to be arguing against the control large platforms have to effectively police speech into a box more narrow than the law, and (looking only at the provided snippets) does not seem to claim that the law can't or shouldn't provide some boundaries itself. Like, I don't know this user's opinion on whether truth in advertising laws are legitimate, only about whether it makes sense for Twitter / Facebook to be the ones who get to make the decision. In this case, they are asking why it isn't illegal, not why it isn't randomly being self-limited by the Internet-age speech carriers.

2) Even if the user quoted were "inconsistent" in that way--and because of #1 I don't think it is, but I want to note why I think your comment isn't as smart as you are hoping it is in more detail--one could easily take the comment to be born out of frustration at a world that decides lots of things should be forbidden but somehow not this one, whether coming from a place of sincerity or simply sarcasm: in a world where somehow there are a ton of things people can't say, why can they say this? A lot of times, I see people try to point out hypocrisy in online communication and in fact the two parties are just talking past each other, using the other's attempt to call out hypocrisy as a way to judge their position, ignoring that there are easier explanations.