> It's not they can't censor, it's that if they do then their legal status changes in a way they do not wish it too.

In other words, they can't censor as they are. A private company cannot censor.

>they can't censor as they are.

Yes

>A private company cannot censor

No. They are common carriers. Twitter and the vast majority of other companies are not.

> No.

But you said "Yes" two lines above.

> They are common carriers.

These common carriers are private companies, not public companies. They aren't owned by the government. They are owned by private shareholders. AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc are private companies or non government entities.

> Twitter and the vast majority of other companies are not.

I never claimed twitter and the vast majority of companies are. I only responded to the assertion that all "non government entities" can censor. I was providing proof that some non government entities cannot censor.

They can indeed censor, I think what the prior poster was saying is that if they choose to censor, their regulation changes.

That's not how it works. They can't censor. It's why they don't. Can you show me anyone who has been #Canceled from their phone service? Ever wonder why nobody demanded Harvey Weinstein or Trump lose their phone numbers? Because they can't do it.

If AT&T wants to censor, they have to go find other business. They can't be in the telephone business and censor. It's a lawsuit and possible jail for the execs involved.

People are so desperate to justify censorship that they'll make up nonsense. I can't believe anyone is dumb enough to believe all the pro-censorship nonsense in my thread. The only explanation is bias once again forcing people to make up and accept nonsense.