The human cost of a piece of content being taken down depends on the piece of content, and the reason behind posting it.
In the case of someone posting about recovery from self injury and including a photo of their healed self-harm scars, having that taken down by mistake would be more harmful than someone who posted a cartoon depiction of suicide for the lolz.
My personal belief, for whatever that's worth, is that communication and speech are one of the most powerful tools any of us have. Talking can change minds, move societies, arouse emotions, and in general makes a difference. This is true no matter the format (text, voice, etc.).
That means that restricting communication should not be a casual activity. Free speech is a good ideal for a reason.
It also means that, if you believe in the primacy of free speech, you are obligated to consider the implications of that belief. Speech has effects. In my adult life, since 1990, we have seen a major change in the ease of communication. IMHO, society hasn't been able to fully adjust to that change -- or rather, that huge suite of changes. I sincerely do not know what a healthy society using the Internet looks like; I don't think we're in one now. All of these arguments (on all sides, mine included) are hampered by our lack of perspective.
Which is why we should research this carefully - and the research thus far points to consumption or graphic or even borderline depictions of suicide, self injury and eating disorder content (eg thinspo) being bad for mental health in at least teens.
Meta seem to be making the case for those who would see social media banned for people under the age of 18. To enforce that properly would require needing ID, and that then opens a whole can of civil liberty issues.
The social "science" research in this area is junk with small effect sizes, unclear causality, and multiple uncontrolled variables. People who claim to be following the science in this area are generally being disingenuous and picking results that support their preferred ideology.
Given how easy it is to take things out of context, I'm not so sure that the original context really makes a difference.
There's more people online than any of us has heartbeats, and the n^2 number of user-user pairs generates detrimental effects that track any positive effects.
Much better, I think, for each of us to have a small and private personal social network, not to hand everything over to a foreign* company trying to project its social norms worldwide.
* Facebook claims about 3 billion active users, so for 89%-93.5%** of its users, the fact that Facebook is American makes them foreign.
The human cost of a piece of content being taken down depends on the piece of content, and the reason behind posting it.
In the case of someone posting about recovery from self injury and including a photo of their healed self-harm scars, having that taken down by mistake would be more harmful than someone who posted a cartoon depiction of suicide for the lolz.