>EU Voice provides EU institutions, bodies and agencies with privacy-friendly microblogging accounts that they typically use for the purposes of press and publi

>EU Voice provides EU institutions, bodies and agencies with privacy-friendly microblogging accounts that they typically use for the purposes of press and public relations activities. I wonder if this usage specification is in anticipation of the can of worms that might be opened if a state were operating one of these platforms for the general user-base as it exists on Twitter or FB or wherever currently? I suspect institutions, buddies, and agencies all self censor and are unlikely to use much 'speech' that the housing state would rather not host. I'm just imagining if this was the US as host and the general public as users. Free speech laws protecting the public from government censorship don't apply on platforms controlled by private entities like Twitter, FB, and the like, but if the state were hosting, they'd either have to implement virtually no rules or deal with every violation potentially being made into a quite literal federal court case. That doesn't seem sustainable. And I'm guessing the same would be true for most other 'free' rule-of-law based states. I wonder if a PBS/NPR style model for social media could sidestep that issue though? PBS's ad-free claim is a laughable joke though, so a strict analog wouldn't be ad-free like this EU instance.