Sure, although I think the utility of a communications network capable of receiving and sending documents within a country is very well proven to be a benefit to society, so any comparison to something less battle tested seems unnecessary.
It makes no sense that in the physical world, we entrust government with identity verification and transmitting correspondence, but that trust is somehow lost in the digital world.
I think the utility of a social communications network capable of receiving and sending updates within a country is a very well proven benefit to society, so any attempt to draw a line between email and social updates seems unnecessary.
Each US citizen deserves access to a public network to express their First Amendment right without moderation.
> Each US citizen deserves access to a public network to express their First Amendment right without moderation.
Sure, make access to the internet an inalienable right also, but web hosting and domains are cheap enough that that should suffice. The network is the internet, and if people want to visit your website to see what you are saying, they can.
Well, the government owned physical mail service worked pretty well for a few centuries, so... Not much?
Now, of course, you shouldn't be organizing a criminal conspiracy or in general much anti-government protests over the mail or government-downed email. But the majority of communication is quite benign, and so having a government email for the 80% use case (bills, party invites, holiday wishes, etc) would be great. You can use a separate service for your more sensitive communication.