It looks like a conflict of interest. FB is wary of closing accounts linked to leading political figures presumably due to a) not wanting to be seen to interfere with politics too much and b) not wanting to receive retributive political action in those countries.
Alternative explanation is lack of resources which might be plausible - perhaps those with more internal experience could comment on that.
Ain't that the overall conflivt of interest, one amplyfied by the internet and social media? Everything became a contest for eye balls. MSM went online, and there they have to compete with Facebook and Twitter for eye balls to keep ad revenue flowing. Facebook is comepting with Youtube and Twitter for traffic, even Google has to keep traffic up unless they want to loose their ad revenue.
And as for the entities placing ads, well, if they don't their competition does. So they go for those with highest traffic and engagement. Again motivating sites to keep user on their sites and keep engagement up. For MSM, and social media, this means controversy and click bait.
So even if Facebook was willing to stop to be used for propaganda, ahich I highly doubt, it could very well be that Facebbok is unable to do so to begin with. They let it happen and they have a tremendous amount of power, they don't and risk becoming irrelevant and loosing that power.
It looks like a conflict of interest. FB is wary of closing accounts linked to leading political figures presumably due to a) not wanting to be seen to interfere with politics too much and b) not wanting to receive retributive political action in those countries.
Alternative explanation is lack of resources which might be plausible - perhaps those with more internal experience could comment on that.