> how come using those platforms with numerous issues are not a 'policy problem?
Yes, it is, in a way- there is an implicit endorsement. That has to be balanced with the opportunity to craft messages directly to the audience the potentially problematic platform serves. But use does not entail responsibility.
FB/Twitter were/are policy problems, but their operation is not the responsibility of any specific actor in government. The issue is more diffuse.
> Twitter was hacked, the POTUS account was used to promote crypto scam, and this is not a "policy" issue?
Yes, it was a problem for Twitter, because they were the operator. The statements made under the POTUS account were not actually made by POTUS. So not really a policy problem for POTUS.
> Threads is owned by a company who has repeatedly involved in scandals about how data is handled, how is that not a "policy" issue?
Sure, but the government is not the operator. It is not responsible for Meta's failings.
> I honestly don't buy this argument. If the government position was that nothing on social media should be "official" and this is why any presence gets less oversight, okay. If the position is that the presence is official as long as the participants adhere to govt guidelines, okay. But those same guidelines could be applied on a public-owned platform.
Neither of those is the rule.
When a designated government voice speaks, that's "official", no matter what medium through which that speech occurs.
There may be problems with the medium, and the government authorities responsible for regulating those problems will take those issues up with the medium. They are responsible for regulating, not responsible for operating. The government entity using the medium will often continue to do so, even when there is a seeming conflict.
One sees this all the time in the financial sphere, where there are many regulators and many service providers which in theory need to be in compliance with the requirements of the various regulators but every day there are questions and disputes and claims and counter-claims and so forth. It happens all the time that one government agency is making use of a service provider for something while another government agency is suing that same service provider.
> What I don't get is that they can claim that their presence is official while on the private platforms but are somehow unable to act in the same way if the platform was public.
Yeah- it's completely different, if by "public" you mean "substantially controlled or operated by a government entity." Because then government is both accountable and responsible. When it's a private operator, the operator is responsible, and government at best is just accountable, if something really bad happens.