... when it comes to free speech.

I don't believe it for a second.

If he wants me to believe it rather than believe he and his entire family should be boiled in oil for deliberately suppressing speech for raw political purpose and at the behest of a set of political movements, an act that is illegal under the First Amendment and by the way he has admitted the government was involved so no, there is not an excuse for it as a "purely private action" then, among other things, he can un-ban all the accounts that were banned.

This includes mine that was not "banned" for any action taken on the platform -- I resigned from Facebook over a decade ago, and when I attempted to re-register I was told that I was inauthentic, I appealed it, and the result was "I violated community standards" and was told there was no further appeal possible via any means.

That screen comes up if I attempt to sign in.

I can't have "violated community standards" if I was not part of the community at the time.

Clearly, Zuck's mansion simply didn't want me on the platform -- probably because of my very public criticism of Meta/Facebook's actions, including raw interference in the elections process in 2020 which he and his wife engaged in through their "foundation".

You're not supposed to be able to donate more than a small amount of money per-person to a political campaign or entity as a person, and corporations are not supposed to be able to donate anything at all.  This is long-standing law.  Of course we've created "work-arounds" through so-called "unaffiliated" SuperPACs which allegedly cannot "coordinate" with any candidate or committee, but what Zuck did was not even within that sort of remit because all electioneering (advertising being part of it) must disclose who funded it -- he instead funded voter activity only in Democrat heavy areas, a clearly-partisan and coordinated act, and did so to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

This while we were under the (false) rubric that "we cannot actually manage to get off our asses and go vote" because there was a virus in the community.  Well, yes, there was a virus.  There always are viruses and yet never before was this an excuse to violate election laws.

This time it was, and under the black letter of said laws those "exceptions" were not permissible.  That is, State Law governs elections, including for federal offices, but in essentially every case it is not permitted to change said laws in the few months prior to an election because that is deliberate interference; that is, you can pass a change but not implement it on short time and in many cases the changes were unlawful in the first instance (e.g. non-attested ballot dropbox ballots with no chain of custody and no means of ascertaining that the person requesting and casting said ballot as indeed a lawfully-registered voter.)

Was the 2020 election thus engineered and stolen?  Hell if I know -- but that election laws were broken and nobody cared is not subject to debate -- it is fact that in plenty of states, essentially all of them Democrat majority in Legislature and Governor, black-letter laws were deliberately ignored and thus there is no way to know if the results were tampered with or not whether in the counting or the casting of ballots itself.  Lest you forget among the clear evidence of tampering (but not the outcome of same) were seals that were broken, non-segregated access (e.g. credentials shared by multiple people), audit trails deliberately overwritten or deleted and a false "water main" break that didn't actually happen (an overflowing toilet in a building, whether accidental or intentionally caused, is not a water main break.)

This election, if you recall, they tried the same sort of crap in Pennsylvania in attempts to "find" more votes for as long as they needed to in order to get the result they wanted, specifically for a Senate seat, but this time the State Courts slapped it down.  Not that the people doing it cared the first time they were told to stop; they not only ignored the court thinking that because they pulled that sort of crap the last time and nobody went to jail they could do so again they bragged about doing it an open public government session!  But this time the judiciary said "I don't think so!" and rather-sternly reminded said election officials that they're called laws for a reason.  Then the cryfest of excuses came from those who should have been hauled off in irons and their children thrown into the street (but they did desist -- this time.)

So here's the question Zuck: Yes, my personal account is one of those you blocked but its just one of thousands if not hundreds of thousands your firm banhammered.  And no, I'm not particularly interested in being one of your farmed humans -- my attempt to sign back up was more of an act of curiosity than anything else.  While my particular instance is one where your site's claims were and are 100% a lie since you can't "violate community standards" without being in the community, I held no Facebook account through the entire period in question, I was not originally banned (I quit), I've held the same domain and email address since 1999 (and that is trivially and publicly verifiable) so there is no possibility that said sign-up attempt came from anyone but me, there are plenty of people who were tossed for questioning the Covid narratives, particularly that the virus was man-made and further questioning the safety of the shots and other mitigation measures which we now know were in both cases appropriate to question because those of us who did so were right and as a result we're not fucked in the case of the shots and many of who did them are either permanently screwed or dead.

Are you going to restore all of those accounts of people unjustly banned as well as mine?

Or were you lying once again -- you know, sort of like Elon has been about so-called "free speech"?

Facebook has my email address which, I presume, would get a notification if Zuck was to un-banhammer the account.

I'm reasonably sure I'll die of old age before he does any such thing because I simply do not believe a venomous snake will ever do anything other than bite whenever it believes it is to its advantage, but if I'm wrong Zuck is free to go ahead and prove it.

I think he just wants to suck The Don's dick which could be otherwise and more-accurately stated as "please don't eat me!"

Well, for as long as my account is banned I hope he and his entire genetic line DO get eaten.

By feral hogs.

IMHO they all deserve it.