> AT&T isn't responsible for the content of phone calls, and they also don't exert any editorial control over them.
AT&T is a common carrier for mobile and voice services so I'm not sure why you are raising them as a counter example. While they are not responsible for the content that is sent on their network, they do work with law enforcement and the intelligence community to ensure that specific crimes which occur only over telecommunications (i.e. threatening someone over the phone) can be investigated and proscecuted.
> and they also don't exert any editorial control over them.
Also, this is a requirement of being a common carrier. They have to send everything from A to B regardless of (lawful) content. Facebook, Twitter, et al, seemingly want to create an environment in which they can self-editorialise but are not held up to even the basic standards of a common carrier.
A correction to what I said - they are not common carrier for mobile data. They are common carriers for mobile voice communications.
There is a whole series of FTC v AT&T lawsuits which outline this argument and the extent to which they are subject to FTC regulation, if you're interested.
AT&T is a common carrier for mobile and voice services so I'm not sure why you are raising them as a counter example. While they are not responsible for the content that is sent on their network, they do work with law enforcement and the intelligence community to ensure that specific crimes which occur only over telecommunications (i.e. threatening someone over the phone) can be investigated and proscecuted.
> and they also don't exert any editorial control over them.
Also, this is a requirement of being a common carrier. They have to send everything from A to B regardless of (lawful) content. Facebook, Twitter, et al, seemingly want to create an environment in which they can self-editorialise but are not held up to even the basic standards of a common carrier.