> 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.

> 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.

This is exactly my point. This framing makes it clear that the leaks are not about publishing information that the leakers believe is vital to get out-- it is about leveraging the resulting fallout.

> Snowden was also achieving political goals with his publishing

It is perfectly fine, expected even, for a whistleblowers ethical/political goals to align with them blowing the whistle (duh).

But If you, at the first opportunity, turn around unprompted (!!) and go "I'll stop publishing immediately if you just do what I want" then you're not actually a whistleblower past that point in my eyes.

Does not mean that you are automatically wrong, or a "bad guy" or even acting unethically-- but you do give up significant moral high ground by doing this regardless.