There's plenty of figurative or suggestive speech that's not literally "I will kill so-and-so" or "Someone should kill so-and-so". As other commenters have note

There's plenty of figurative or suggestive speech that's not literally "I will kill so-and-so" or "Someone should kill so-and-so". As other commenters have noted, Bannon's actions and other statements suggest he's intentionally dancing around the issue. Facebook have previously removed, for example, suggestive posts from Ramzan Kadyrov, which, while they did not make direct statements, were threatening: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2016/02/02/instagram-removes-kadyrovs-video-of-russian-opposition-in-the-crosshairs-a51666 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2016/02/02/instagram-removes-... While Kadyrov has a more established history of following through on his threats than Bannon, I don't think it's unreasonable to come to the conclusion that Facebook does have a double standard: if you or I post "<prominent government official>'s head should be on a spike", do you think their moderation team would apply the same leniency? I wager they would not: what we see here is part of an established pattern where Facebook's executives, and Zuckerberg in particular, do not want to be seen as biased against the right wing sentiment, because remaining in the good graces of those with political power is more important than actually upholding their supposed community standards.