> The migration part is because Twitter is a centralized network, which has been ever more draconian with its APIs. Federated and decentralized networks shouldn

> The migration part is because Twitter is a centralized network, which has been ever more draconian with its APIs. Federated and decentralized networks shouldn't have logistic issues with exiting. Again, see Mastodon. I think you missed the whole point of the paragraph. The reason "exit" is not easy even on "decentralized networks" like Mastodon is because of the economics of doing so. Even though it's technically more feasible than closed sourced social graphs like Facebook or Twitter, people rarely have enough incentive to fork off with their own network. For this migration to work correctly, it should be effortless and without much cost for every user. That's not the case as the article explains clearly. No matter how federated Mastodon instances are, they are equivalent to running a city. Most people don't want to run a city just because they are sick of some policies. They have other better things to do in their real lives. OP explains that in these federated approaches or Urbit like approaches, technically you're free to fork off, but most people will choose to live a shitty life because it's too much hassle.