> why are we allowing Tan to step away from this because he was drunk?

I'm not. Being drunk excuses nothing. If anything, it makes it more poignant because drunk people are more likely to say out loud those thoughts that they would otherwise prefer keep to themselves. "In vino veritas".

I wouldn't mind making him endure those cringy pre-recorded videos HR makes you sit through every X number of years about professionalism in the workplace, filled with staged and stock photography, amateur hour voice-overs, and fourth grade level personal interaction.

Obviously the problem is the technology that makes it too easy for a drunk person to be publicly intoxicated and causing trouble.

But ignore the fact that most people on this board work for companies that build this technology.

I have my objects to Twitter, but that isn't one of them. Here, someone in a position of power demonstrated poor judgment and self-control in a way that damages his reputation and that of his company, but does not harm anyone beyond that.

I dont agree.

So because some un-self-aware rich a hole says something offensive we should censor, restrict the free speech of the general populous?

It's not the enablement of communication that's the problem here. It's a simple case of fault. He is as fault for his actions, not social media.

Perhaps Twitter needs a breathalyser option for the more excitable executive.

I think you can hold people to a standard of behavior, but I don't think you can hold anyone to a standard of mental health.

quite the leap from a few too many drinks, directly to therapy and mental health issues. if that's your take from someone being drunk and saying something ridiculous then I'd question your judgement.