Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
It&#x27;s not surprising that someone who sounds like a sort of free speech absolutist agrees that permanent bans are bad for the idea of free and accessible speech.<p>The problem I have with some free speech purists is that they give me a feeling that they are persons who are more often than not unaffected by speech that can be categorised as inciting hatred towards a people, and thus they see little to no problem with being able to spread harmful bad faith speech freely on an algorithmic social media site - or any place for that matter.<p>It&#x27;s a tricky thing for which there are no real correct answers. What I do know is that socially and politically we have several unwritten rules about what, where and how to speak about things because not abiding by those rules results in things as minor as slight embarrassment to as severe as physical violence. That is to say, things can spiral out of hand and the usefulness of speech deteriorates if some standards are not kept.<p>Twitter shouldn&#x27;t be the judge of what an American president can say, because the American people should have already filtered out a person of such low integrity from gaining a position in such a high public office. All this time I&#x27;ve felt amused by how much our American friends can talk about what should or shouldn&#x27;t Twitter do, but seemingly never discuss how they can as a society make sure that the executive office doesn&#x27;t get filled by someone who brought their entire democratic process to disrepute.<p>To conclude, I think if you aren&#x27;t scared of what another Trump can do to your country or its societal fabric or your personal freedoms then I see no reason why a Dorsey doesn&#x27;t think Trump should be allowed to come back. The women of his country already saw what one term of Trump did to the rights they thought they had. Not all political turmoil is scary for those who are safe from politics.