[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]

You're not making a distinction, you're classifying it incorrectly. Containing a messaging component does not make it a messenger.

It's a social network, it clearly believes that the connections between people is the most important part of its offering. It can migrate a user and their connections.

Again, I would enjoy it if it did take posts, too, but clearly they disagree. I'm not going to say that they cannot claim it to be a migration as a result of that.

[smcn]

It's not a messenger, though. It's a social network.

And you can disagree with that, just as I do you.

Post migration still supports messaging.