1News introduces the story on Meta's decision to discontinue content moderation contracts with the claim "there's growing concern recent changes to social media Meta are going to leave minority groups vulnerable to abuse and violence."

Of course, it would be too much to expect them to note that it is actually the vulnerable and minority that suffer the most where there is no free speech (reference to research in comments).

Critics of Meta’s move (of which there are many) would do well to consider the alternative.

A world where tech giants act as gatekeepers of truth is a world where dissent is stifled, innovation is curbed, and trust in democratic institutions erodes further.

That is where content moderation has led us.

Fighting for free speech isn't to say that all speech is good. It's to say that censorship is a cure worse than the disease.

The better path is one where citizens are empowered to engage critically with information, where robust public discourse allows ideas to rise or fall based on their merits, and where the principle of free speech remains paramount.