I mostly agree that is the claim that they are making. I already quoted the relevant part of the earlier blog, so here's the part from today's:

"While we believe that in every other situation we have faced — including the Daily Stormer and 8chan — it would have been appropriate as an infrastructure provider for us to wait for legal process, in this case the imminent and emergency threat to human life which continues to escalate causes us to take this action."

I say "mostly" because there is also the interpretation that they believe there were multiple appropriate actions in the earlier cases. I still feel it's a 180 turn from the earlier blog post, though. They set out a clear principle just last week, and already have found an exception that they neglected to mention.

Edit: This doesn't necessarily mean that their revised approach is wrong, just that it's a turnaround.

If they think those earlier decisions were the wrong call, then why haven't they rescinded them? There's no law that says that after you kick someone off your service, you can never invite them back on.

Having a higher bar for kicking someone off than inviting them on seems very reasonable to me, even if you think you made a mistake before.

Or it's inconsistent bs and they obviously know that bringing them back on would be a terrible publicity event, impacting bottom line

This rewrites history because there were active cases of inciting to violence on 8chan before they pulled the plug