There is nothing in the source material that suggests that the conversation was directed at a 3rd party. Person A was having a conversation with Person B, and made a comment that Person C overheard and got offended at.
The twitter conversation analogy fits perfectly.
How is a joke about socks in pants less sexual in nature than a joke about a big dongle?
A - person to the left B - person to the right C - Adria
Yes, you have missed the distinction and the twitter "analogy" is false.
Adria[C] (I've no idea who any of these people are) turned and spoke to the person to the far left [A] behind her - and it "involved forking the repo to continue development".
Then, the "guy next to him" [B] .... um, the 3rd Person [B], began making forking jokes.
So how does [B] have an active relationship to [C]? (Speculation: [B] thinks there is a relationship because they are sitting next to [A]?)
Now we have to introduce [D] -- the traveller inbound to the USA. The "socks in pants" sexual innuendo is between party [D] and [C]. Party [D] tweets about the TSA, party [C] responds.
Where is [B] or other letter if twitter is supposed to be analogous? Being an observer or a passive listener doesn't count!
Apart from this significant difference, both are dick jokes and to me seems to be poking innocent fun but reveals a closed mindedness and double standard from Adria.
It isn't hypocrisy either.
You appear to have confused the difference between active and passive involvement in a conversation.
The tweets were an active response. The problem was directing a "suggestive" / "lewd" conversation at a 3rd Party with no active relationship.
As a representative of a company (their name is on your badge), unless you have a personal and independent connection with someone, everything you say "represents the organization". And, even if you have a personal connection, you can still get in trouble.