I agree that discussing #1 beyond what is strictly required to be able to assess DC's response would qualify as derailing, however I respectfully disagree that

I agree that discussing #1 beyond what is strictly required to be able to assess DC's response would qualify as derailing, however I respectfully disagree that "It is totally fine to discuss #2 without discussing #1". I believe that, to assess the quality of the response, it is required to understand what was the level of severity of the event. How the event should be handled, and hence the response, is a function of the severity of the event. Of course, if we view the response as being to a broader "climate of suspicion" surrounding DC, it can be assessed differently - but it still would require contextual information for assessment, specifically regarding what circumstances have created this climate of suspicion in the first place. While some actions on DataCamp's part - specifically, the noindex tag - are definitely shady, it is difficult to understand whether their response (which seems to be mostly to attempt to reassure the data science community that they are listening and focused on being a positive actor in the community) is appropriate or not without understanding what they are responding to.