It’s not illegal, just stupid because. Because plaintiffs can use this as evidence that they can police their own platforms
That’s an internet argument. The legal issue being debated in actual courts has never been “does Facebook have the technical capability to remove content”.
There's a strong chance it's illegal so admitting to it is pretty breathtaking. They must be very confident they're in the clear, or the spokesperson didn't run this by the right people.
What is illegal about it? What law does it break?
Could these removals indicate editorial discretion that would remove § 230 protections from Facebook?
I think that would apply if they started removing user content about this. But Facebook is simply declining to accept ads about this, which doesn't seem like it would apply here.