Last week, Twitter announced a new policy for withholding tweets, in a move sparking “#outrage” largely from those failing to notice that the new policy is actually less restrictive than Twitter’s current model.

Here’s how that new system works. A nation identifies content which violates their local restrictions on free expression and submits to Twitter a legal order to remove that content. If Twitter finds the order to be valid, they will remove the tweet only from that nation — users there will see a message that a tweet is being blocked. In other nations, the tweet will still appear, along with a message informing users that the tweet is being withheld in another country. According to Twitter, no tweets are ever preemptively blocked, and none are removed without a legally binding order.

Although a visceral reaction against any private assistance in state censorship is understandable, users should recognize that the new policy is more liberal than the current model. Previously, offending tweets would be globally deleted from Twitter’s servers. That made the whole of Twitter only as free as the most restrictive nation. Now, tweets are withheld from as few users as is legally necessary.

This begrudging cooperation with foreign governments is a business necessity for an internationally expanding company which only reached profitability in the last few years. Failure to comply with legal orders to remove content could embroil the company in expensive legal battles and risk their standing in new markets. “We will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression,” Twitter wrote on their blog post announcing the new model. Their new system is an elegant way of adapting to those contours of free speech.

Although Twitter’s move represents a concession to states’ censorship policies, the platform remains overwhelmingly a force for positive social change across all nations, from the Arab Spring to Occupy Wall Street. Now, Twitter’s “Tweet Withheld” messages may actually draw awareness to the issue of institutional censorship. Users who have been denied content by their government will direct their outrage not at Twitter, but at their own leaders — censorship inspiring speech.