I'm starting to wonder whether operating a shared #code-hosting platform is only possible with sponsorship. #Gitorious collapsed because their paid hosting couldn't cover their costs (which includes the cost of free hosting). I don't believe #Github ever publicly released figures, but I do remember hearing a rumor that they were not profitable before #Microsoft purchased them. #Bitbucket still persists, but #Atlassian has made so many changes to their offerings that IMO, using their platform is putting everything that touches it at risk. #SourceForge went to all sorts of dangerous extremes to try to monetize the huge number of repositories they host (most of which appear to be residue of projects that have either died or moved their active repos elsewhere).
I believe moving over to #Codeberg is a big improvement over relying on #GitHub (which, as #SourceForge once was, is the center of gravity for FOSS projects' development).
I closed all my repos on GH some years back. I kept one or two repos on #BitBucket for years, but they were basically dead. When BB rid itself of #Mercurial ( #hg ) and switched solely to #git, I took advantage of the opportunity to close my account there.
That said, large numbers of people moving en mass from GitHub to Codeberg would just move the problem to a different platform. The problem being people rely heavily on a centralized service.
As for GitHub, I still have my account, and with job-hunting, I really need to put something there. Seriously, I have had some places send rejection notices because they couldn't see any evidence (on GitHub) that I knew anything about the job. But I really only want GH to be a secondary mirror of a main repo hosted elsewhere.
One of the things I like from #Bitbucket that #GitLab.com doesn't have is that you can enable anonymous issues in your projects, which means people don't have to create an account on Bitbucket to be able to report issues.
I usually don't report issues when the issue tracker asks me to create an account.