The world is complicated. That's why there is a legal system.
In this case, the judge explicitly considered and rejected the applicability of every one of your points, writing at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.49... :
"The Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown that their injuries are likely traceable to government-coerced enforcement for the following reasons. First, Facebook had previously reviewed the Chicagoland group, and Apple had previously reviewed Eyes Up. In both cases, Facebook and Apple had determined that the content met their requirements. Second, Facebook and Apple changed their positions and removed the content immediately after Defendants contacted them about it. And third, Defendants made public statements taking credit for the fact that Facebook and Apple had removed the content."
"Regarding the third element, and as alleged, Defendants’ actions can be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action against Facebook and Apple in order to suppress Plaintiffs’ speech" ...
"As the Seventh Circuit found in Backpage, although the defendant lacked “authority to take any official action” and did not “directly threaten the [third parties] with an investigation or prosecution,” the defendant still engaged in coercion where he “demand[ed]” rather than “request[ed],” and where he “intimat[ed]” that the third parties “may be criminal accomplices” if they failed to comply. Id. at 232, 236. Here, Bondi and Noem did exactly that. They reached out to Facebook and Apple and demanded, rather than requested, that Facebook and Apple censor Plaintiff’s speech."
In this case, the judge explicitly considered and rejected the applicability of every one of your points, writing at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.49... :
"The Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown that their injuries are likely traceable to government-coerced enforcement for the following reasons. First, Facebook had previously reviewed the Chicagoland group, and Apple had previously reviewed Eyes Up. In both cases, Facebook and Apple had determined that the content met their requirements. Second, Facebook and Apple changed their positions and removed the content immediately after Defendants contacted them about it. And third, Defendants made public statements taking credit for the fact that Facebook and Apple had removed the content."
"Regarding the third element, and as alleged, Defendants’ actions can be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action against Facebook and Apple in order to suppress Plaintiffs’ speech" ...
"As the Seventh Circuit found in Backpage, although the defendant lacked “authority to take any official action” and did not “directly threaten the [third parties] with an investigation or prosecution,” the defendant still engaged in coercion where he “demand[ed]” rather than “request[ed],” and where he “intimat[ed]” that the third parties “may be criminal accomplices” if they failed to comply. Id. at 232, 236. Here, Bondi and Noem did exactly that. They reached out to Facebook and Apple and demanded, rather than requested, that Facebook and Apple censor Plaintiff’s speech."