it is quite clear that there are breaches of ethical norms on RG but that does not necessarily mean that the platform itself is unethical.

There is always conflict between rights of free expression and the moral objection to that.

Free expression is very often unethical but nonetheless essential.

The suppression of projects which were used to categorise publicatoon including articles introduced discriminations among the researchgate members.

A broad platform like RG is bound to have discriminatory members. It is the price we pay for pluralism. The purpose of debate is to challenge discrimination and we are all biased.

If we wish to eliminate discrimination then we must eliminate debate or reduce it to polite tea-time chatter.

Over a year ago, a Ukrainian female scientist protesting against Russian Trolls and, subject to missile strikes on the city in which she lived, called the Trolls names. RG gave her a warning and began from then on turning a blind eye to the Troll's excesses.

Nothing was done about them!

There are times where RG seems to get its priorities wrong and there does occasionally seem to be a PC/woke flavour to some of their admonitions to posters.

We should not confuse the somewhat ideologically constructed values of political correctness with ethics. Ethics are culturally determined values not politically determined values. Sophisticated and cultured ethics arise from a pluralist approach and in the case of science ideology is a usurper.

Yeah, I too think that the political correctness du jour should not be confused with ethics. In fact, that was my first question when I saw the subject of this thread. Define ethics.

Today's political correctness can easily become tomorrow's reminiscing of phony "virtue signaling," disingenuous, counterproductive, maybe even harmful. Nothing ethical about that. It's too easy to go back, even in recent times, and find thinking and behaviors that we consider negative today.

What makes anyone believe that the same won't happen tomorrow?

Trolls, in my opinion, bring shame on themselves. Let them. This too could be considered a form of social Darwinism.

Researchgate is not an "ethical platform" in the sense that it is not a "platform for ethics." Moreover, as a platform, Researchgate may not be ethical if it violates pertinent ethical codes. If the latter, then what pertinent ethical codes does Researchgate violate? What are the facts? Can those ethical codes likewise be applied to Researchgate's competitors?

I'm not sure how to distinguish between discrimination and heterogeneity. Discrimination results from human judgment, and heterogeneity is a system trait. Heterogeneity is a real-world feature that provides beauty and complexity.