"We've always believed that Americans should be able to hear from the people who want to lead the country," Clegg said.

"We don't want to stand in the way of that."

As Meta wrote in a lengthy blog post:

"Social media is rooted in the belief that open debate and the free flow of ideas are important values, especially at a time when they are under threat in many places around the world. As a general rule, we don't want to get in the way of open, public and democratic debate on Meta's platforms — especially in the context of elections in democratic societies like the United States.

The public should be able to hear what their politicians are saying — the good, the bad and the ugly — so that they can make informed choices at the ballot box. But that does not mean there are no limits to what people can say on our platform. When there is a clear risk of real world harm — a deliberately high bar for Meta to intervene in public discourse — we act.

We know that any decision we make on this issue will be fiercely criticized. Reasonable people will disagree over whether it is the right decision. But a decision had to be made, so we have tried to make it as best we can in a way that is consistent with our values and the process we established in response to the Oversight Board's guidance."