The problem is defining what those "non-discriminatory terms of service" are and applying them evenly to everyone. That's why Facebook is making a theoretically

The problem is defining what those "non-discriminatory terms of service" are and applying them evenly to everyone. That's why Facebook is making a theoretically independent content review board - things aren't black and white, especially in today's climate in which people just deny facts. Trump's issue with Twitter illustrates this point - he's just factually incorrect about a lot of his voter fraud claims, but he calls it discrimination against his view point and he's got millions of people who support him in that. So where's the line? I think anti-vaxxers should be censored because their viewpoint causes actual harm to people, but they would obviously argue otherwise. You can say that anything that causes harm is not permitted and call that a non-discriminatory term of service, but whenever you apply it, the person you're applying it against is going to claim discrimination. A lot of people don't like FB's stance of letting anything go in terms of political ads, but they don't have a good alternative, because otherwise any stance they take will face claims of discrimination. In that case, I think the government should be defining what is acceptable content for political ads and leaving it to FB to enforce, but of course the people in government are more biased than anyone. It is, to say the least, a tough problem.