The disclosure would be about Google's alleged unjustified discrimination in favour of women. Not sure whether it's true or perceived, nor whether it would be illegal, but still.
The code of conduct is irrelevant since it cannot override the law: if the memo is protected under the law such protection would trump whatever the code of conduct states. Note that it's a pretty big "if".
But combine that with the fact that his arguments are old and largely dealt with...
You keep claiming the arguments are "old and largely dealt with" but it doesn't seem to be the case to me. That they are not new I might agree with, but not that they are dealt with since in fact the debate is there to prove otherwise. These arguments have not been dealt with yet, at least not conclusively.
On top of that this issue is not among the reasons Google gives to justify its actions: Google fired him because his arguments were considered disruptive of the narrative Google wants to push as its culture, no matter how valid, old, new or whatever the arguments actually are.
Google has every right to do such a thing, but if you don't accept arguments that go against your narrative being raised, don't claim you want to promote open debate.
The real problem here is that it wasn't done anonymously, or he wasn't able to remain anonymous, it's unclear what exactly happened. Speech can have consequences, especially in a workplace where there are some necessary rules on behaviour.
This is only a problem if the issue were this specific person getting fired. Although it might be unfortunate, it's not the main issue. Were the memo anonymous it would still have stirred a debate, only without a head to roll to appease those hurt by it.
Then why all the fuss? If what he said has been considered already and again the memo should have resulted in bored dismissal, not heated debate. The fact that it ignited such a debate is a pretty tell-tale sign to me that there are still many open points worthy of consideration.
He wasn't just reporting statistical trivia. He was saying that a relatively small difference (check the numbers, it's somewhere between zero and very small depending on the country) is the reason why women do worse in their programming careers.
An open debate on the merit of his claims would have been very interesting, but this is not what Google did. Google basically stated that such arguments are not to be brought up and doing so is ground for immediate termination.
Consider similar arguments that are made about race. "Black people have smaller skulls, that's why they are less intelligent and poorer on average". Ignoring how valid or otherwise that statement is, what is the point of making it? It's usually to excuse or dismiss all the other reasons. That's the issue here.
Basically you are stating that since similar arguments are usually made in bad faith, this argument should be automatically considered in bad faith too? That's a nice example of generalization, ironically.
On top of that you are ignoring the wrong aspect. You want to ignore whether the argument is valid or not since it might have been made in bad faith, but even arguments made in bad faith might be valid and the reason they are made doesn't matter. You can do right for the wrong reasons still.
Do you really think Google's VP of Diversity gives two figs about scientific studies? Pointing out an inconvenient fact will get you fired. That's the reality.
Of course that's the reality, which is exactly the point. The point is that Google is not interested in an open debate about the issue as they claim, nor in actual, factual explanations and possible solutions based on them.
Some naives might have believed their narrative and tought Google to be different: now they demonstrated to everyone they are not.
If you can't deal with the "human" part, this isn't the business for you.
Dealing with the "human" part also means dealing with the hard fact that differences between men and women exist and solution which might be most effective for men might be less effective for women and vice-versa.
Okay, so he called women "emotionally unstable" or "insecure". I'm not certain how reading the Wikipedia definition makes that sound any better.
No, he claimed there are scientific studies proving women on average show that personality trait more than men. This sounding "bad" is irrelevant, either is correct or is not and it actually seems to be correct.
Unless you claim when trying to analyze a problem we should avoid bringing up explanations who "sound bad" so that we can keep our minds at ease... ridiculous.
Leningrad 2 was already delayed twice actually... and the russian commission in 2015 basically acknowledegd nuclear power incurs regularly in construction delay and increased costs, often one leading to the other.
On top of that, it's not only the US: France nuclear power industry is in pretty bad shape too with huge debt, underfunded decommissioning plans and new constructions incurring huge delays and budget overruns.
Actually, of the 55 nuclear power plants under constuctions in the World, 35 are behind schedule and only 4 of these are in the US: https://www.economist.com/blog...
As I said I don't think nuclear has to be discarded as option, but I doubt nuclear will have a big comeback until generation 4 reactors get productive, if and whenever that happens.
I somewhat agree that nuclear is not to be discarded as option, but I wouldn't take Belarus as example of "cheap and safe" just yet. Belarus is not exactly transparent with the pretty concerning accidents and mistakes during construction, not to mention the planning itself is somewhat questionable: https://euobserver.com/opinion...
No, you claimed the article is "informative" when it is wrong.
It's not wrong, you are clearly misunderstanding the problem.
But perhaps we are cross talking each other?
Likely....
That is actually what I wrote in my first post in this article (not as an answer to you)
So? What does "overload" mean? It means wires are melting or other bad stuff is happening.
And? That is NEVER going to happen. Because you can offline the solar plants, shut down fossiles or what ever.
So: The article was wrong!!!
The article never says there are no other technical solutions, it actually mentions them. The issue is that they are less practicable than just paying other states to consume the excess output. From the article I guess you still didn't read:
Utility officials note that solar production is often cut back first because starting and stopping natural gas plants is costlier and more difficult than shutting down solar panels.
Complicating matters is that even when CAISO requires large-scale solar plants to shut off panels, it can’t control solar rooftop installations that are churning out electricity.
Again, the article was not wrong, it mentions the options you claim it didn't and explains why the other option was chosen instead.
In theory yes, in practice not, as that is in practice never happening because the safeguards automatically disconnect power plants then. Facepalm.
If you disconnect a power plant you have a pretty big drop in power. Unless that drop in power happens to closely match the oversupply (very unlikely), guess what you get? A power outage. These safeguard exists but cannot be used to regulate power, they exist as emergency.
Exactly. And that is not written in the article but was written by me and other/. ers here in this threat.
Again, you didn't read the article: it definitely explains all options and why they chose paying Arizona instead. I won't bother to quote it again, read it yourself.
And the main point, see "overload" above is: obviously the grid is not overloaded by the surplus energy. Obviously there is no black out.
So about what are you arguing? You think the article was well worded when it in fact is full of nonsense? Sorry, then you have a low standard on journalism.
If you did bother actually reading the article you would understand the problem and why that particular solution was chosen, which you do not. I don't understand your prejudice against it, maybe you don't like the chosen solution, the conclusion the article draws or the facts it exposes, but this doesn't make it "nonsense" or "bad journalism". Read it with an open mind and try to inform yourself before judging.
It's only wrong if you can either quickly and easily store the excess energy, or quickly and easily throttle output to avoid overloading. Obviously you don't grasp both options are currently not available...
Actually both options are available but considered more expensive than giving the energy away for free and paying on top of it.
I never claimed they are not available, I claimed they are not quickly and easily available, which you agree with since otherwise it would not be more expensive...
And: the energy which obviously would overpower the grid, is nevertheless transported via that grid to Arizona.
If you think the problem is the overall amount of energy entering the grid, you are completely missing the point. You can likely put even more energy into the grid as long as it gets consumed, What you cannot do is put into the grid more grid that gets consumed. If you remove the transport toward Arizona you get exactly that, and a grid with a big problem.
I'll stick to my opinion.
Then you are probably not very smart.
Maybe, or maybe you are completely missing the point with your idea that "since the grid is able to transport it away, it should be able to hold it without overloading".
The claim is that California has to pay to get Arizona to use up its surplus energy, and the claim is correct
No, the claim was: not doing so would overpower the grid, while in fact the energy is just transported away with exactly that grid.
Again, as long as the power is consumed, you have no problem. If more power enters the grid than it gets consumed, you have a problem. "Transported away" from the point of view of California's grid is just another form of consumption , which evidently is a cheaper solution than reducing input or increasing consumption in some other way.
Because you don't grasp that the following is wrong.
CAISO needs to quickly sell the excess to avoid overloading the electricity grid, which can cause blackouts.
The power is actually transported to Arizona via "the electric grid"... and usually you simply disconnect the power plant if you can not get rid of the power... no thread of overloading or black out (facepalm).
It's only wrong if you can either quickly and easily store the excess energy, or quickly and easily throttle output to avoid overloading. Obviously you don't grasp both options are currently not available...
Oversupply causes prices to fall, even below zero.
And this is absolute nonsense.
The price goes below zero because the power company has only 3 choices:
a) disconnect a part of the solar power (probably with contracts forcing to pay for the not used power anyway), which might make it complicated to reconnect it (getting it in phase etc. or having "special protocols")
b) powering down a fossile plant, with the problem that they already know that they have to power it back up close to nightfall, which might cause costs (more costs than "selling" the excess power for a negative price)
c) giving the power away, for a negative price, which is bottom line a lower loss than the costs in a) or b)
There is no "market force" that drives power prices into the negative, that idea is absurd.
The claim is that California has to pay to get Arizona to use up its surplus energy, and the claim is correct: this is exactly option c) which you describe. As even you describe, once you decide to go route c) you effectively have a negative price.
So: the article is complete bullshit, but you find it informative.
It might not be 100% environmentally friendly, but it's more environmentally friendly than most alternatives. Anyway this has no relevance to the article, which is more about managing solar energy production and the transition to it from an infrastructure completely based on fossil fuel.
The journalist is (a) clueless about energy production and (b) a careless writer.
Just one example of the latter: "free" is not "paying other states to take it". Which is it? I'm not going to bother to look, but what crappy writing and editing.
Maybe you should actually bother reading. From the article:
Why does California have to pay rather than simply give the power away free?
When there isn’t demand for all the power the state is producing, CAISO needs to quickly sell the excess to avoid overloading the electricity grid, which can cause blackouts. Basic economics kick in. Oversupply causes prices to fall, even below zero. That’s because Arizona has to curtail its own sources of electricity to take California’s power when it doesn’t really need it, which can cost money. So Arizona will use power from California at times like this only if it has an economic incentive — which means being paid.
In my opinion the article is actually pretty good.
How can the government divert traffic with the intent of bypassing the law, and somehow this is legal because of the method they used to do it? Are they not also conspiring to break the law?
The same way tax avoidance is legal: the intent is to bypass as much taxation as possible not by breaking the law but by abusing legal loopholes instead.
Like configurable keyboards able to change what's displayed on the keys didn't exist already... It would be pretty simple to allow the connected device to automatically setup the keyboard to have the preferred layout.
Harward University's definition of "asshole" evidently includes people mocking sexual assault, the Holocaust and racial minorities... and that's the only definition which matters when discussion Harward University's decision to revoke these admission.
You are still entitled to your own definition of "asshole", which might differ: just don't expect it to have any weight whatsoever on Harward University's.
Not using their code means an immediate loss of good tools/software, which will make it harder for government to fairly evaluate criminal cases. Court cases will become even more of what one person said versus what the other said, and therefore have worse outcomes than if technology was used to provide evidence.
This assumes that the tools/software are good (proof?), than it allows for easier and fair evaluation of cases (proof?) and that not using these tools would lead to worse outcomes for the defendant (proof?). To prove such tings would require to know and understand the details of how the algorithm work, which is impossible with the algorithm being closed.
Yes, of course there is potential for abuse in closed source software, but most likely there isn't blatant abuse, because that would look really bad if it got out that the government was, for example, targeting minorities or gays directly
It wouldn't be the first time the government got caught doing something reprehensible which assumed would never get public. Furthermore the "abuse" doesn't need to be malicious, it can also arise from unexpected behaviour of the algorithm in specific cases.
Having it closed source isn't ideal, but if it can be reliably shown to make accurate predictions, it's better than nothing.
No matter how accurate it is, the defendant has the right to know the reasoning leading to his sentencing and "the algorithm we trust said so" is definitely not enough.
Of course they can: the law in the US forbids the US government from stifling free speech, but imposes no such obligation on private entities such as Twitter which, as a private company, has no obligation to protect free speech and can censor whatever it wants for whatever reason.
EU laws stop at EU borders, and therefore EU laws have no business trying to control data on a server hosted by a US company in a datacenter on US soil.
As long as the data is in US soil and remains in US soil... but Twitter is serving data outside of US soil and into the EU.
Look, it's not a difficult concept: if you operate in a country you have to abide to its laws, and serving content means you do operate in that country, even if the content originates from the US. Again, try exporting and selling something from the US into the EU and trying to claim you somehow can bypass all EU consumer laws since you are "incorporated in the US"... Good luck with such business plan.
You might have missed Twitter's EMEA headquarter in Dublin. It's naive to think you can do business in other countries and only have to abide to the law of the US.
Sure, but irrelevant: it's still only binding to the US, not to other countries. Basically if you are in Germany the US Constitution grants you free speech in the sense that it protects your free speech from begin censored by the US government, but it doesn't protect you in any way from being censored by the German government...
Americans have free speech in the US but, shockingly, US laws are not universal... the instant you set foot to another country you better realise a completely different set of protections (or lack of them) applies.
Twitter definitely enjoys free speech protection for its operation in the US, definitely not for its operations in other countries.
Slashdot Mirror
The disclosure would be about Google's alleged unjustified discrimination in favour of women. Not sure whether it's true or perceived, nor whether it would be illegal, but still.
The code of conduct is irrelevant since it cannot override the law: if the memo is protected under the law such protection would trump whatever the code of conduct states. Note that it's a pretty big "if".
But combine that with the fact that his arguments are old and largely dealt with...
You keep claiming the arguments are "old and largely dealt with" but it doesn't seem to be the case to me. That they are not new I might agree with, but not that they are dealt with since in fact the debate is there to prove otherwise. These arguments have not been dealt with yet, at least not conclusively.
On top of that this issue is not among the reasons Google gives to justify its actions: Google fired him because his arguments were considered disruptive of the narrative Google wants to push as its culture, no matter how valid, old, new or whatever the arguments actually are.
Google has every right to do such a thing, but if you don't accept arguments that go against your narrative being raised, don't claim you want to promote open debate.
The real problem here is that it wasn't done anonymously, or he wasn't able to remain anonymous, it's unclear what exactly happened. Speech can have consequences, especially in a workplace where there are some necessary rules on behaviour.
This is only a problem if the issue were this specific person getting fired. Although it might be unfortunate, it's not the main issue. Were the memo anonymous it would still have stirred a debate, only without a head to roll to appease those hurt by it.
Then why all the fuss? If what he said has been considered already and again the memo should have resulted in bored dismissal, not heated debate. The fact that it ignited such a debate is a pretty tell-tale sign to me that there are still many open points worthy of consideration.
He wasn't just reporting statistical trivia. He was saying that a relatively small difference (check the numbers, it's somewhere between zero and very small depending on the country) is the reason why women do worse in their programming careers.
An open debate on the merit of his claims would have been very interesting, but this is not what Google did. Google basically stated that such arguments are not to be brought up and doing so is ground for immediate termination.
Consider similar arguments that are made about race. "Black people have smaller skulls, that's why they are less intelligent and poorer on average". Ignoring how valid or otherwise that statement is, what is the point of making it? It's usually to excuse or dismiss all the other reasons. That's the issue here.
Basically you are stating that since similar arguments are usually made in bad faith, this argument should be automatically considered in bad faith too? That's a nice example of generalization, ironically.
On top of that you are ignoring the wrong aspect. You want to ignore whether the argument is valid or not since it might have been made in bad faith, but even arguments made in bad faith might be valid and the reason they are made doesn't matter. You can do right for the wrong reasons still.
Do you really think Google's VP of Diversity gives two figs about scientific studies? Pointing out an inconvenient fact will get you fired. That's the reality.
Of course that's the reality, which is exactly the point. The point is that Google is not interested in an open debate about the issue as they claim, nor in actual, factual explanations and possible solutions based on them.
Some naives might have believed their narrative and tought Google to be different: now they demonstrated to everyone they are not.
If you can't deal with the "human" part, this isn't the business for you.
Dealing with the "human" part also means dealing with the hard fact that differences between men and women exist and solution which might be most effective for men might be less effective for women and vice-versa.
Okay, so he called women "emotionally unstable" or "insecure". I'm not certain how reading the Wikipedia definition makes that sound any better.
No, he claimed there are scientific studies proving women on average show that personality trait more than men. This sounding "bad" is irrelevant, either is correct or is not and it actually seems to be correct.
Unless you claim when trying to analyze a problem we should avoid bringing up explanations who "sound bad" so that we can keep our minds at ease... ridiculous.
The 14 days cancel and return of online purchases no question asked is mandatory in the EU.
Leningrad 2 was already delayed twice actually... and the russian commission in 2015 basically acknowledegd nuclear power incurs regularly in construction delay and increased costs, often one leading to the other.
On top of that, it's not only the US: France nuclear power industry is in pretty bad shape too with huge debt, underfunded decommissioning plans and new constructions incurring huge delays and budget overruns.
Actually, of the 55 nuclear power plants under constuctions in the World, 35 are behind schedule and only 4 of these are in the US: https://www.economist.com/blog...
As I said I don't think nuclear has to be discarded as option, but I doubt nuclear will have a big comeback until generation 4 reactors get productive, if and whenever that happens.
I somewhat agree that nuclear is not to be discarded as option, but I wouldn't take Belarus as example of "cheap and safe" just yet. Belarus is not exactly transparent with the pretty concerning accidents and mistakes during construction, not to mention the planning itself is somewhat questionable: https://euobserver.com/opinion...
No, you claimed the article is "informative" when it is wrong.
It's not wrong, you are clearly misunderstanding the problem.
But perhaps we are cross talking each other?
Likely....
That is actually what I wrote in my first post in this article (not as an answer to you) So? What does "overload" mean? It means wires are melting or other bad stuff is happening. And? That is NEVER going to happen. Because you can offline the solar plants, shut down fossiles or what ever. So: The article was wrong!!!
The article never says there are no other technical solutions, it actually mentions them. The issue is that they are less practicable than just paying other states to consume the excess output. From the article I guess you still didn't read:
Utility officials note that solar production is often cut back first because starting and stopping natural gas plants is costlier and more difficult than shutting down solar panels.
Complicating matters is that even when CAISO requires large-scale solar plants to shut off panels, it can’t control solar rooftop installations that are churning out electricity.
Again, the article was not wrong, it mentions the options you claim it didn't and explains why the other option was chosen instead.
In theory yes, in practice not, as that is in practice never happening because the safeguards automatically disconnect power plants then. Facepalm.
If you disconnect a power plant you have a pretty big drop in power. Unless that drop in power happens to closely match the oversupply (very unlikely), guess what you get? A power outage. These safeguard exists but cannot be used to regulate power, they exist as emergency.
Exactly. And that is not written in the article but was written by me and other /. ers here in this threat.
Again, you didn't read the article: it definitely explains all options and why they chose paying Arizona instead. I won't bother to quote it again, read it yourself.
And the main point, see "overload" above is: obviously the grid is not overloaded by the surplus energy. Obviously there is no black out.
So about what are you arguing? You think the article was well worded when it in fact is full of nonsense? Sorry, then you have a low standard on journalism.
If you did bother actually reading the article you would understand the problem and why that particular solution was chosen, which you do not. I don't understand your prejudice against it, maybe you don't like the chosen solution, the conclusion the article draws or the facts it exposes, but this doesn't make it "nonsense" or "bad journalism". Read it with an open mind and try to inform yourself before judging.
It's only wrong if you can either quickly and easily store the excess energy, or quickly and easily throttle output to avoid overloading. Obviously you don't grasp both options are currently not available... Actually both options are available but considered more expensive than giving the energy away for free and paying on top of it.
I never claimed they are not available, I claimed they are not quickly and easily available, which you agree with since otherwise it would not be more expensive...
And: the energy which obviously would overpower the grid, is nevertheless transported via that grid to Arizona.
If you think the problem is the overall amount of energy entering the grid, you are completely missing the point. You can likely put even more energy into the grid as long as it gets consumed, What you cannot do is put into the grid more grid that gets consumed. If you remove the transport toward Arizona you get exactly that, and a grid with a big problem.
I'll stick to my opinion. Then you are probably not very smart.
Maybe, or maybe you are completely missing the point with your idea that "since the grid is able to transport it away, it should be able to hold it without overloading".
The claim is that California has to pay to get Arizona to use up its surplus energy, and the claim is correct No, the claim was: not doing so would overpower the grid, while in fact the energy is just transported away with exactly that grid.
Again, as long as the power is consumed, you have no problem. If more power enters the grid than it gets consumed, you have a problem. "Transported away" from the point of view of California's grid is just another form of consumption , which evidently is a cheaper solution than reducing input or increasing consumption in some other way.
Because you don't grasp that the following is wrong.
CAISO needs to quickly sell the excess to avoid overloading the electricity grid, which can cause blackouts.
The power is actually transported to Arizona via "the electric grid" ... and usually you simply disconnect the power plant if you can not get rid of the power ... no thread of overloading or black out (facepalm).
It's only wrong if you can either quickly and easily store the excess energy, or quickly and easily throttle output to avoid overloading. Obviously you don't grasp both options are currently not available...
Oversupply causes prices to fall, even below zero. And this is absolute nonsense.
The price goes below zero because the power company has only 3 choices: a) disconnect a part of the solar power (probably with contracts forcing to pay for the not used power anyway), which might make it complicated to reconnect it (getting it in phase etc. or having "special protocols") b) powering down a fossile plant, with the problem that they already know that they have to power it back up close to nightfall, which might cause costs (more costs than "selling" the excess power for a negative price) c) giving the power away, for a negative price, which is bottom line a lower loss than the costs in a) or b)
There is no "market force" that drives power prices into the negative, that idea is absurd.
The claim is that California has to pay to get Arizona to use up its surplus energy, and the claim is correct: this is exactly option c) which you describe. As even you describe, once you decide to go route c) you effectively have a negative price.
So: the article is complete bullshit, but you find it informative.
I'll stick to my opinion.
I'm then a little afraid what the "America of the future" will be...
It might not be 100% environmentally friendly, but it's more environmentally friendly than most alternatives. Anyway this has no relevance to the article, which is more about managing solar energy production and the transition to it from an infrastructure completely based on fossil fuel.
The journalist is (a) clueless about energy production and (b) a careless writer.
Just one example of the latter: "free" is not "paying other states to take it". Which is it? I'm not going to bother to look, but what crappy writing and editing.
Maybe you should actually bother reading. From the article:
Why does California have to pay rather than simply give the power away free?
When there isn’t demand for all the power the state is producing, CAISO needs to quickly sell the excess to avoid overloading the electricity grid, which can cause blackouts. Basic economics kick in. Oversupply causes prices to fall, even below zero. That’s because Arizona has to curtail its own sources of electricity to take California’s power when it doesn’t really need it, which can cost money. So Arizona will use power from California at times like this only if it has an economic incentive — which means being paid.
In my opinion the article is actually pretty good.
How can the government divert traffic with the intent of bypassing the law, and somehow this is legal because of the method they used to do it? Are they not also conspiring to break the law?
The same way tax avoidance is legal: the intent is to bypass as much taxation as possible not by breaking the law but by abusing legal loopholes instead.
Like configurable keyboards able to change what's displayed on the keys didn't exist already... It would be pretty simple to allow the connected device to automatically setup the keyboard to have the preferred layout.
Harward University's definition of "asshole" evidently includes people mocking sexual assault, the Holocaust and racial minorities... and that's the only definition which matters when discussion Harward University's decision to revoke these admission.
You are still entitled to your own definition of "asshole", which might differ: just don't expect it to have any weight whatsoever on Harward University's.
Not using their code means an immediate loss of good tools/software, which will make it harder for government to fairly evaluate criminal cases. Court cases will become even more of what one person said versus what the other said, and therefore have worse outcomes than if technology was used to provide evidence.
This assumes that the tools/software are good (proof?), than it allows for easier and fair evaluation of cases (proof?) and that not using these tools would lead to worse outcomes for the defendant (proof?). To prove such tings would require to know and understand the details of how the algorithm work, which is impossible with the algorithm being closed.
Yes, of course there is potential for abuse in closed source software, but most likely there isn't blatant abuse, because that would look really bad if it got out that the government was, for example, targeting minorities or gays directly
It wouldn't be the first time the government got caught doing something reprehensible which assumed would never get public. Furthermore the "abuse" doesn't need to be malicious, it can also arise from unexpected behaviour of the algorithm in specific cases.
Having it closed source isn't ideal, but if it can be reliably shown to make accurate predictions, it's better than nothing.
No matter how accurate it is, the defendant has the right to know the reasoning leading to his sentencing and "the algorithm we trust said so" is definitely not enough.
Of course they can: the law in the US forbids the US government from stifling free speech, but imposes no such obligation on private entities such as Twitter which, as a private company, has no obligation to protect free speech and can censor whatever it wants for whatever reason.
EU laws stop at EU borders, and therefore EU laws have no business trying to control data on a server hosted by a US company in a datacenter on US soil.
As long as the data is in US soil and remains in US soil... but Twitter is serving data outside of US soil and into the EU.
Look, it's not a difficult concept: if you operate in a country you have to abide to its laws, and serving content means you do operate in that country, even if the content originates from the US. Again, try exporting and selling something from the US into the EU and trying to claim you somehow can bypass all EU consumer laws since you are "incorporated in the US"... Good luck with such business plan.
You might have missed Twitter's EMEA headquarter in Dublin. It's naive to think you can do business in other countries and only have to abide to the law of the US.
Sure, but irrelevant: it's still only binding to the US, not to other countries. Basically if you are in Germany the US Constitution grants you free speech in the sense that it protects your free speech from begin censored by the US government, but it doesn't protect you in any way from being censored by the German government...
Americans have free speech in the US but, shockingly, US laws are not universal... the instant you set foot to another country you better realise a completely different set of protections (or lack of them) applies.
Twitter definitely enjoys free speech protection for its operation in the US, definitely not for its operations in other countries.