That’s a very hard question, and i’m not in any shape of form is qualified…
But on a human level, i would assume common criteria should be something like:
I’m sure there are much more legal signs which could define and specify networks like Twitter, Google, Facebook etc
In a nutshell it is ability to change social / political landscape of any country, if there is a will.
Not bad criteria.
To me, the root of all this are the perverse incentives created by these companies being mostly funded by advertising. Sites like these want to keep you on their platforms as long and often as possible to theoretically serve you as many ads as possible.
What is a shortcut to do that? Outrage, controversy, and feeding you only things that confirm your beliefs. I think the ad model is what needs to be attacked first.
I think this mostly depends on the country. In the us, anti-discrimination laws define what groups cannot be discriminated against. Implying that discrimination for reasons other than those characteristics is ok.
When i’m thinking about it more, there are plenty of other social networks that doesn’t really matter (at least yet), primarily because they don’t even close to meet such criteria, therefore they’re not really important to those who seek control and power…
Yeah that makes a lot of sense logically, and i think many have tried that before actually usually their defense is something like “but we don’t control it, it’s algorithms of AI”, which is partially true and partially loads of crap.
Problem with that approach alone - they don’t really care anymore about logic for their own profits even, it’s beyond that point where market could dictate reality of their income, look at facebook’s design ffs, how anyone could spend even second there is beyond me 
There’s no doubt exact discrimination laws depends on country, that doesn’t mean though that from a legal perspective discrimination is generally considered a separate issue to your example
btw, that would explain something like discrimination by “being Alex Jones” is ok 
I’m personally of the opinion that once a given social media gains a certain amount of power and influence they need to be held to a similar standard of censorship and discrimination as the government.
YouTube, FB, twitter, etc. Have grow to be near universal primary platforms for speech,etc. And should not be allowed to dictate user rights IMO as they’re far too large and powerful
But how are we gonna know about the frogs turning gay!?!?!
Yea, I don’t disagree with that in principle, I just don’t think the burden of creating the laws should fall on the legislators that we have in the US. What a bunch of (mostly) clueless morons.
@Kresimir will be first to tell us 
As a wise man once said:
“I don’t like ‘em putting chemicals in the water that turn the freakin’ frogs gay.” [1]
Whose fault is that tbh? When we the people don’t vote or vote in the same people for decades IMO we can only blame ourselves
As non-american, i can say that you can blame both simultaneously and doesn’t make same mistakes twice 
Still though, compared to absolute most of countries…those clueless morons are not that bad 
But certainly all countries could use some improvements in that department right here, right now 
Let’s get some facts out of the way, unless somebody missed it:
nobody’s business except your own.This is not about someone who you disagree with, not about political views, this is about YOU and everyone you know.
In case it’s not obvious, social networks of “big tech” are centrally controlled and coordinated by glowing agencies and above-national structures, they are NOT in any way shape or form independent companies, they exist only to CONTROL you and your personal data with or without your permission, if you participate.
It will certainly lead to violence in a near future and very likely war / civil-war.
Those who really control such social communications - are laughing in your face right now, when YOU support it.
They don’t care about what or why you say, as long as it conforms to their agenda and profit.
They directly support not virtual, but real violence like recent extremists burning cities and killing a lot of innocent people in a process, “twitter-revolutions” like Arab spring left and right all over the world, bragging about it.
They’re absolutely fine with posting accounts of propaganda for terrorist states
They’re absolutely fine with posting propaganda “chinese gender studies” showing that concentration camps and forced sterilization of women are actually very good and empowering for their future.
If you think that it’s internal affairs of US and it’s business - you’re very wrong. It will be absolute chaos in really bad places, where tyranny and dictatorship is already going on. Those states will gladly with joy continue to suppress free-speech even harder and keep killing political, ethnic or ethical dissidents, without you even ever knowing about it.
All those social networks and companies were always like that, it’s just very last time to realize it now and oppose however you can and if you must use something like that - please use FOSS and encrypted messengers and networks which doesn’t restrict your speech.
I urge everyone to think for yourself, do it as fast as you can, be free from slavery of mind and stay strong against any forms of tyranny and oppression.
This was decades in a making process, so think twice about what will happen next to those who welcome censorship with open arms.
Learn from history, it will literally help you and your family to survive.
P.S. I know this discussion started with seemingly “innocent” and “independent” mailchimp, and look at us now. Told ya 
Well, that’s a report. I also now know who to block.
Your choice, my dear pro-censorship friend 
I’m glad that it’s not against our community guidelines, unless speaking about:
was retrospectively written to rules
And it is certainly not political, if you imply that, i don’t care about that when speaking on that matter.
Please don’t wash out subject of topic.
For the rest of those who want to talk about dangers of what’s going on and possible future of our communications - please continue discussion, this is very important time in history to think for yourself.
P.S. btw, pesonally i’ve never been part of any big-tech network since it was predictable where it goes from day 1.
So i’m just 3rd person perspective 
in that sense
I think you are trying to look at things from a rather black and white perspective. The messages of the POTUS have lead to a ramp-up of gratuitous violence. There are people dead and the National Guard has been deployed. The POTUS has done this with the help of said social networks and they simply said “we help you no more to do these things”.
If someone stabs you with a knife, you try to make sure the attacker loses the knife. That’s what they did. Took away the knife.
Now, that the major social media platforms are corrupt in that they exploit their users` privacy for gains, that’s another topic. That the current way the internet works has ensured the means for almost total and complete surveillance, with that I can also agree.
Got it. A definition is a definition only if you say so, else it’s just random words.
That’s indeed
Again, just to make clear, below is not political statement or beliefs, rather than illustration of big tech problems:
While i don’t agree that any of said messages have directly ramped up violence, if you actually read them (although i certainly can agree that there might be someone crazy 1 of 1000 person that can read anything to any messge, that’s always danger and should be avoided NOT by censorship)
I completely disagree that something outstanding have happened compared to actual calls for extreme violence and let’s face it - race wars, for last half year which lead to very big tension, calling for kills of political opponents etc all around those networks and was never removed, some of it by now.
And that plays in hands of big tech overlords directly btw.
This can happen to anyone and any next president which you may like, censoring world leaders is extremely dangerous because it’s manipulation of public opinion - you will never know what someone actually thinks / writes. This will lead to more violence and war, inevitably.
All at once?
Come on 
I’d probably agree that may be legit argument (although super-dangerous) if that would be 1-2 networks.
I believe they took away not the potential attacker knife, but your ability and freedom to judge and defend against it for yourself.
After all none of those big tech overlords or glowing agencies are elected officials which represent you or me…
I’d argue it’s same double-edged sword 
One cannot go without the other, one hand washes the other…
PS: I’m muting this thread now, please PM if a conversation is required. 
PS: I am not interested in what you are muting or not. Also, i am not your personal secretary.
