Facebook can afford to do so because they have higher margins allowing for more experimentation/risk-taking. Businesses in more competitive spaces are unable to take tough stands.

The New York Times cannot be the New York Times of New York Times v Sullivan anymore, because their ad monopoly has been decimated. But Facebook can be the NYT of NYT v Sullivan, because they have 40% margins on their ad business.

One thing I have been wondering is: why is Google so lacking in conviction?

Audience.

Twitter has a more left leaning audience than many social media platforms, hence its creep away from tolerating anything right wing or centrist.

Facebook's audience is predominantly more balanced in that regard, with a larger percentage of conservatives using it in some way (especially those in older generations).

If they tried to go the same way as Twitter or Reddit, a large percentage of Facebook users would be absolutely pissed, and they'd likely lose a lot of traffic.

I had always thought it was to fend off DOJ and regulatory action from the Trump administration.

I think you're confusing conservative views with hateful ones. Zuckerberg makes the same mistake and it's discussed in the article:

>“He [Zuckerberg] uses ‘diverse perspective’ as essentially a cover for right-wing thinking when the real problem is dangerous ideologies,” Brandi Collins-Dexter, a senior campaign director at Color of Change, told BuzzFeed News after reading excerpts of Zuckerberg’s comments. “If you are conflating conservatives with white nationalists, that seems like a far deeper problem because that’s what we’re talking about. We’re talking about hate groups and really specific dangerous ideologies and behavior.”

Other platforms has plenty of voices from all parts of the spectrum. The difference is that they might actually be making a more sincere attempt at moderating.