Snowden himself says that he saw a surveillance state being built and the people responsible lying about it under oat in front of democratic representatives (see James Clapper).

In his words, he wanted the American public to know about what was going on, and to get a say.

But when you say "I'll stop publishing once my political goals are achieved", you are openly admitting that:

1) You publishing this informations causes harm

2) You are using that harm to achieve your political goals

3) You can live with the actual information/leaks staying hidden once the (possibly only tangentially related) goals are achieved (which indicates that the whole thing was primarily about achieving your political goals, not about getting out the information).

That, to me, is the difference between "whistleblowing" and "blackmail".

> 1) You publishing this informations causes harm

…Harm to a company supporting genocide

> 2) You are using that harm to achieve your political goals

Snowden was also achieving political goals with his publishing

> 3) You can live with the actual information/leaks staying hidden once the (possibly only tangentially related) goals are achieved (which indicates that the whole thing was primarily about achieving your political goals, not about getting out the information).

Stopping once Meta stops the censorship would cause people to learn about what’s happening in Gaza, which I’m guessing is more important to the authors than exposing Meta’s censorship machine.