Issues with authorisation provider strings

Citing brands normally requires a (R) or (TM) symbol in plain text, but the capitalization is not erlevant for domain names (that are only reserved for the time they are registered and renewed with the proper fees paid to the registrar). If we want to make sure we link to these brand names, there are generally rules so that any third party may not use these brands prominently when they should instead make thir own party party name and logo more visible if the content does not originates and is not protected by the brand's copyright. Site links using these brands just need to not use a sentence which may visitors think that, for example a third party page hosted on these services are endorsed by these brands. Using logos is more restricted (and it is not allowed to change colors, and there are placement/layout restrictions). For simple text, it is acceptable to "translate" (or transliterate) these as long as there's no (R) to (tm) symbol beside it, and that needed adaptations (including voice rendering which is very variable across spoken languages) which can more clearly cite the brand are also explained by something more explicit and using the branding rules (generally a logo, or the registered brand name) accordig to their listed policies.

Using these logos (and any derivation but only if they are allowed) and exact brand names (with the registration symbol) is not required in all places (there's a common right of citation as long as there's no attempt to impersonate these brands and let users think that the content is endorsed by the companies owning these brands). Usnig a logo for example is not needed when there's an actual link going to a contributed page that respects the policies of the brand owner of the hosting provider. They just ask to not use these names to create derivations (e.g. creating a conjugated verb or adjective: the brand should remain a noun, treated like other proper names for people names in a way that is natural and does not offense them. Some derivations however have been used and are accepted and even promoted by these sites (e.g. the "Tweetos" for their hosted communities, clearly distinguished from the company accepting them).

So the best way is before using derived names is to see how these brands are advertized by these companies themselves, in formal documents, contracts, business reports, financial reports, if necessary they register additional terms for use in specific contexts, suich as stock symbols, and domain names, but they don't own these terms, just lease them for a limtied period of time which is not warrantied for extended periods of time)...

If translations are made for languages that don't naturally use the same script as the registered brand name, standard transliterations rules (not translations) are usable. In specific countries or juridictions, these derivations may even be legal. If the name is to be used in translatable pages, the original brand name should still be displayed if there's no other clear indicator of the brand (such as a link using a non-masqueraded domain name). Usnig "URL shorteners" that do not link directly to the original websites is not acceptable. Generally these hosting companies provide kits to help create suitable buttons, links, or using documented API entry points, and developers should then follow the documented practices, but should still follow the requirements set by laws for privacy). Mere links are also acceptable in most juridictions.

If users have doubts, they should read the "About" page of these companies, read the user agreements and policies and respect the contracts they accepted when joining to these hosting sites. As well linking to user pages present on other hosted sites is generally not acceptable, and care must be taken so that these personnally identifiable users have their privacy respected. On this wiki or other MediaWiki-based sites, we have a __NOINDEX__ that wiki user pages can add to prevent theur user pages linking to other third party sites to be indexed (wikis use existing standards that search engines have legally advertized that they should respect). However brands are not subject to privacy restrictions that are about physical persons only. But for an isolated use of a brand name needed for a correctly identifiable citation whcih makes no other assertion or association about these brands jsut because of the presence of that single word or expression, there's nothing wrong. You can then translate things like "Modern Art Museum", and add a precision of needed (such as a city name or country name). This is frequently needed for names of national institutions (which are only unique and reserved on their juridiction and subject to local laws and protections or restrictions only there, but not elsewhere; that's why brand names aloen are not sufficient, and all brands have registered logos that should then not be altered even if theese logos are explained or vocalized as a hint).

If you create a document using or citing these brands, and it is valid at the time of publication, but later the company changes its brands, you are not required to change these brands at the same time: on a wiki, all hosted documents have a dated history. Brand owners however ha a right to oppose such citations that would not conform to their current or new policies. All wikis should have a contact form for such legal requests, allowing to negociate what should be the best form of citation (as long as it does not violate a legal but respectful and right of citation, as needed on all news medias and for preserving the freedom of speech).

Logos are not translatable here so they are not an issue (all we have is a possible link to an image following the logo usage policies and showing the necessary copyright statements and legal verbiage needed, on the image description page). If we cannot use these logos for copyright reasons, we can still cite the brand names and domain names as logn as it does not violate other security or user privacy policies or legal requirements).