On May 3 the Wall Street Journal offered a story by Georgia Wells that characterized the reason for the bannings as their views being too "inflammatory". Toward the end, the article says that Facebook normally forbids support or "praise" of persons it has banned, even for activities off site. It removes events from Facebook if it knows these events are going. (Loomer says she is banned from Uber and Lyft, Paypal, etc, following earlier reports of banning of some people by payment processors). This sounds like a very dangerous precedent.
The New York Times has a story by Mike Isaac and Kevin Rose in which Watson denies he violated any terms of service. Indy100 reports that Watson had supported a "parachute journalism" exercise in Sweden by Tim Pool in 2017 where Tim's experience did not confirm Trump's claims on European migration.
One issue I would wonder about is past posts about any of these persons, such as a review of Milo's book (which is not really very extreme at all) or Pam Geller's, which he helped publish. Could, under SJW pressure to remove the extreme right (or abusers) from society, Bloggers be compelled to remove reviews or mentions? How far would that go? Why not remove all reviews of Weinstein Company films from the past because of Harvey Weinstein's scandal?
There is one other concept -- the "conflict of interest" concern with regard to the workplace and blogging policies of the past (in the old Web 1.0 world) which I have written about in the past and which I to deal with personally in 1997 when I did a corporate transfer over the gays in the military issue. I do agree with the general idea that Facebook, as a private company, has every right to protect its reputation and "brand" as generally understood, although not as a monopoly. When someone makes a living from ads or patronage off a social media platform out of sheer volume of visitors or subscribers, there are legitimate questions that parallel my own problem in the past -- if you look at speakers on these platforms as "contractors" rather than as their own publishers. I will have to look at this issue for platforms in the future, compared to what I had said about (management or "actuarial" worker) in the past.
Later May 3: Tim Pool gives his detailed take on what is really going on here.