Listen to the announcement by Dan. They are not trying to make Voice private per se. In fact, every user must be identified in order to have an account. There will likely be some privacy between users, but the point is they are making a social site where every user is real. No bots, no fake accounts, not misrepresentation. A site where people will be accountable for what they say. This will drive real conversations and reduce the fraud and prevent manipulation/abuse of those who would post false information to sway individuals. Free speech, but authenticated to establish a backing of responsibility for truth.
That is what I got from the announcement event replay-video.
Right, it has a function but it's not going to be the go to social media for the intimate or personal settings because it's public. This limits it's potential to grow.
In other words, on the record official business. This is limited though precisely for that reason because how much of communication between people is designated for maximum accountability?
Great for interviews. Great for business. Great for journalism. Great for politicians. But the majority of millennial communications I highly doubt will be in these categories.
I don't know if the conversations will be real. Accountable does not mean real. Accountable is merely that which is considered "on the record". There is for sure a place for this style of communication but I think the mistake you are making and many others is to assume this is the primary mode that humans communicate (historically). It's actually not the primary mode of communication which is precisely why WhatsApp, Snapchat, Telegram, are gaining in popularity.
I don't believe "free speech" can exist if there is an optimization for max accountability. You cannot say what you say. To simplify: You have to say that which you'll be least punished for saying. This isn't what most people think of when they think of "free speech" unless we also believe people in China under the social credit system have free speech as well.
I think it is a mistake (critical mistake) to market this sort of platform as being "free speech" friendly. It's not going to be there and I'll put myself on record for expressing the opinion that it cannot be considered that.
This is not to say that I'm saying we necessarily want to have free speech or that we should put emphasis on privacy but more to say that there is no such thing as "free speech" as a concept if there is no private communication. I'm putting forth the philosophical argument that only private speech (that which is optimized for minimum accountability) is considered to be "free" in the sense that the people communicating are allowed to communicate exactly what they really think or feel.
In interest in being balanced I think we have to be honest with the readers and admit that on a platform under this model they will have to watch what they say. It's in the interest of minimizing the damage people could cause to themselves. While your angle you present is in the interest is in minimizing the damage people cause to others (fraud, bullying, etc).