I’m much more comfortable trying things that I’m not sure will (or expect not to) work. I can just blast the toolbox or whatever afterwards.

Compare to some of my earlier forays into Linux, where I’d do some nonsense and then attempts to remove said nonsense would break some other load-bearing part of the OS.

1. The legal framework and argumentation used to justify the ban is worrisome and can be applied overbroadly in the suppression of speech.

2. Despite this broad possible argumentation, it has just been, and will likely continue to be, wielded in a way targeted towards suppression of speech in a targeted, nationalistic, and at times overtly racist ways. (See: “Senator, I’m Singaporean, not Chinese.”)

3. Like it or not, it’s become a large repository of internet history and online conversation. The loss of the platform is the loss of that history.

If the government had particular problems with the platform’s practices and behaviors, it would have been able to field an actual lawsuit with real charges, or levy fines. This “sell or be banned” is a clear grab for power more than any actual gesture towards protecting the people.

It’s a little strange that you think “I want feature parity with what’s working for me (from my perspective)” is:

1. A lie.
2. Unreasonable to ask for.

The healthy responses would be “Well, I hope either support grows or your needs change, because of some philosophical reasons you might not care about… yet” or, if they’re open to it “Oh, it can do this if you put a little work in, let me help you.”

The unhealthy response is to accuse people of moving goalposts as if someone’s tool of choice is a political debate. It can be, obviously, given FOSS philosophies, but honestly this kind of screed just drives people away.