[thrdbndndn]

No seriously, I'm not being sarcastic.

You can't call keeping merely the contacts without emails themselves "migration of email provider". It makes no sense.

Also, you said "follower[s] don't have to do anything", but somehow you (the followee) on the other hand needs to actively move? What if my follower is on this instance too and they don't actively move? Shouldn't their account disappear (and you lost your follower)? I genuinely don't understand how it would work other than everyone has to manually move together.

[smcn]

False equivalence, it's a _social network_, and you can, indeed, migrate your social network.

[pessimizer]

That's mistaking the map for the terrain. It's a networked system for leaving and retrieving messages. It's not a group of friends. The way you expect to migrate a messaging system is by moving the messages.

[smcn]

To confirm, I wish they would migrate posts, too, but I do not believe that the lack of that means that you cannot call it a migration.

However, your definition seems overly pedantic? It defines itself[0] as a social network with an emphasis on audience. Messaging is merely the method of interaction.

[Edit] "audience" is incorrect, I should've said "people"

0: https://joinmastodon.org/

[pessimizer]

A "social network" is a networked system for leaving and retrieving messages. Again, it is not a group of friends. It is a messaging system for a group of friends, just like a map is a graphical system for navigating a piece of terrain.

[smcn]

It seems as though you're putting emphasis on the wrong thing. Mastodon clearly believe the emphasis is on the _network_, as in, the people you follow and who follow you.

But I'm not entirely sure why you're arguing semantics with me. It can, by their definition, be considered migration.

[pessimizer]

> It seems as though you're putting emphasis on the wrong thing.

No, I'm just trying to be clear. If you can't move your messages in a messenger, you're not doing migration.

> It can, by their definition, be considered migration.

Their definition doesn't even require software. If they (and you) are trying to say that Mastodon is a group of friends, I'm going to beg to differ and say that it is a computer program that supports messaging.

edit: and why I'm going on an on about it? I'm clearly being persnickety, but because I think it's an important distinction, especially irt expectations that a user would have. The mystery for me is why you would insist that a messaging system that can't migrate messages has implemented migration.

[smcn]

Sorry, wait, also you're definition of social network is incorrect. It /is/ a group of friends. It's a network made up of social relationships.

Think of it like business networking, but for your friends. The connection itself is what matters.

[pessimizer]

That's what "social networking" is, but not what a "social networking website" is. Social networks don't require computers or websites.

[smcn]

I'm not the person who said that but I can take a swing at it:

If the person does not migrate off of the instance, they'll lose the account and yes, you'll lose a follower. But if they do migrate, both of you keep the connection.