So, I think I've dug as deeply into the #hachyderm drama as I need to, and settled on some conclusions.
Most basically, the best insights came from seeing conversations on another platform: discord.
Admins from both sides were talking. And as it's a chat platform, the engagement and conversation was clearly more direct, free, expressive and clarifying.
If the fediverse wants to be the new internet, seriously, it needs to growup and move on from just microblogging.
Following from the value of discord ... inter-instance and inter-admin communication and conflict resolution (which was happening on discord!) seems to just not be a thing on the fediverse technologically and culturally.
As things scale, this is likely to become more of an issue, especially as the users are also disconnected from their admins to an extent, so the whole thing is inorganically disconnected with probably many failure points.
My general take is that the conflict/drama was actually about not the things people were talking about (as is often the case unfortunately). I think it was a culture clash that wasn't really understood, articulated or acknowledged by either side.
The clash, was over a few qualities.
Hachyderm is process driven and run by a co-op. It is probably slow and discussion based. The blocking instances/admins are quick and active and more happy to judge harshly for advocacy.
...
Hachyderm is culturally a probably a bit more white, wealthy/priveleged and techy which can sometimes lead to less sensitive and more expressive language.
The blocking instances are very happy to use defederation/limiting as a form of advocacy or action, seem to not care about process as much, and are culturally more on the look out for bad actors to the point of happily over-reacting.
Combined with bad communication channels and habits, a fire can start from that.
There's also a little bit of open-public-web v cozy-safe-web in this conflict.
Going back to my reflection on discord, and the various trends on the fediverse, I question the value of pursuing the cozy-web with defederation as a weapon.
Ultimately, the slower process-discussion driven admin of hachyderm seems more appropriate for the current and growing fediverse.
Defederation as a means of communication / conflict-resolution is almost certainly a bad idea at a certain scale, as it's poor conflict resolution, causes negative social side-effects and may discredit the cause. (ATM, it seems no real mediatory admin-admin communication took place prior to the block).
A major side-effect of defederation-as-conflict-resolution is it creates a force of re-centralisation.
Users are mostly blind to these issues as they boil until a dramatic event occurs.
They don't identify with either side, even if they understand it, and yet suffer consequences (eg, de-fed, reputation, etc).
So they move instance, to the large/central one that is unlikely to get blocked and even so it wouldn't matter cuz everyone's there. People proposed this!
Blindness and confusion was a major aspect of the drama. Whether claims/accusations had any substance (or "receipts") was a point of contention. Most heard about drama without knowing anything. Escape rooms are less mysterious than this drama!
In my attempts to dig things up, I found more claims, hearsay, vague accusations, impressions and guesses than anything concrete.
Only on the discord were "receipts" presented. #Mastodon is foggy: much is very well hidden.
The "drama" isn't over. Because it's a process, and that's a good thing.
#hachyderm is currently reviewing their rules (and were prior to the blocks) and has always (it seems) invited feedback, participation and being pushed to be better.
They seemed a little salty that there wasn't more engagement in that philosophy (rather than blocks), and as you can guess, I appreciate the sentiment.
