Writing from Manhattan on May 23, 2018, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald determined U.S. President Donald Trump must keep his Tweets viewable to all Twitter users around the world, by virtue of the world's right-to-read* what the President announces on Twitter.
(*As-opposed-to, "The world's right-to-know the gist of his Tweets from secondhand sources," such as the mass media.)
Although the judge did not outright say, "The world must be able to see your Tweets," she implied it by saying, "You cannot block anyone on Twitter," instead-of more-narrowly writing, "The U.S. President cannot block any American citizens on Twitter."
This begs the question: How does the world have a right-to-directly-see presidential Tweets, despite the plaintiffs' argument resting-upon the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to-which the non-American parts of the world are not presumably bound?
Judge Buchwald presumes that what the U.S. President announces publicly is of such paramount importance, his Tweets can possibly impact everyone around the world; and therefore, those affected, i.e., the entire world, should be-able to read his Tweets, even if they are not U.S. citizens.
The "silver lining" in the court decision is that President Trump can still "mute" users while respecting their constitutional right-to-know.
This distinction is the important because it maintains the right to a clutter-free "Notifications" feed: Tweets by a user who is muted, but not blocked, can still be read by the person who muted him-or-her; however, those Tweets will not appear in one's own "Notifications" feed.
Finally, it is foreseeable that the right-to-know an elected official's Tweets will extend to lower-level jurisdictions. (WPR Rebuttal will follow-up on this.)