Economics is not a zero-sum game. Just because the company is making money doesn't mean that you are losing something.
Github has been underwater for years, would you rather it be propped up by a big corporate sponsor that can subsidize its losses, or run out of money and die?
I expect to move, because I also do not trust microsoft, but I am not moving yet until I see what they do with it.
>If you are too late, you might not get your projects off without paying fees.
This thinking belies a misunderstanding of how Git works.
There is no way they can prevent a person from pushing to another repo and recreating whatever workflow they had on Github.
Remember that github is not just git hosting. While I cannot envision a future in which they'd actively prevent you from export/crawl out your own data, migrating your workflow is not as easy as changing your remote.
It's like a bunch of anarchists woke up to find that Kushner just bought the apartment building they were squatting in.
Github wasn't a Robin Hood scheme. They were never giving their finger to the man. Their goal was to make a lot of money, failing that, sell for a lot of money. We are lucky Oracle didn't buy them at least.
Given how many employers/recruiters want to see a GitHub account, I expect to see a lot of future LinkedIn integration.
Microsoft cannot be trusted.
They make fine products, but they are definitely looking to make money from this acquisition.
EDIT: This is to say that Github was not looking to squeeze their users. I have been squeezed by microsoft.