Two things I want to say about this. The first and bigger one is that while I'm willing to read the first article, the second one requires that I turn off my adblocker or whitelist the website in order to see it. I'm not about to do that, so that website is off limits to me.
Also, you mention the "idea" of someone taking over Donald Trump's twitter account without even considering the fact that we have no idea what Twitter's employees can do or how much access they have. We know only that this man had access to the switch used to 'deactivate' the account in question, which doesn't even delete the contents, it simply makes them unavailable. We have no idea who, if anyone, at Twitter has the ability to change text or make false tweets in Donald Trump's name.
Actually, I have a third thing to point out: much more likely than the idea that someone working at Twitter will hack Trump's twitter account and say malicious and dangerous things is the idea that someone not working at Twitter will hack Trump's twitter account and say malicious and dangerous things. It wouldn't be the first time someone broke into a famous Twitter account, after all. Does this mean that we should get paranoid about hackers, or what have you? No, I can tell you exactly what it means.
It means the President shouldn't communicate policy through a digital social media filter that could, at any time, be hacked. Stop fucking tweeting, Donald. That's what speeches are for.