Yet, even though they have many of the legal protections of being a pseudo common carrier, they have none of the obligations, such as the obligation to treat all content equally.
For example, it is illegal for your phone provider to eaves drop on your conversations and censor your phone conversations.
But it is NOT illegal for facebook to do the same thing. Why are they treated differently?
Taking that as unvarnished truth [0], for the sake of argument, that's not at all an ambiguity, it's a crystal clear status.
> Yet, even though they have many of the legal protections of being a pseudo common carrier, they have none of the obligations, such as the obligation to treat all content equally.
Again, taking that as true for the sake of argument, its not an ambiguity, but a crystal clear status.
Its a conflict with the false dichotomy of the idea that the only two roles in information dissemination are fully-liable non-neutral publisher and fully-immunized neutral common carrier. That model isn't true offline, and it's not true online.
[0] Which it isn't, because while the CDA and DMCA (and others) provide some limited/conditional protection, they are not a total bar to liability; but the still the status is not ambiguous, merely distinct.
No, the USPS has a legally-protected monopoly, where alternative services are prohibited from competing with certain core functions.
Alternative web video distribution services are not prohibited, and there are several that specialize in content that is unwelcome on YouTube.
> The present ambiguity over their status
What ambiguity? They are active distribution agents (neither publishers nor common carriers, in that regard, though they are often also publishers, more like bookstores).
It only seems “ambiguous” when framed with a false dichotomy.