The social dynamics of what’s going on in this thread are extremely relevant, indeed this is the essence of what this whole thing is about. But I suspect you know that already.
There's invariably some argument that something is 'relevant' in some way. Everything is relevant to something somehow. The aspirational goal of this messageboard is interesting conversation, though, and debating its "social dynamics" in a generic way, especially with a running meta-commentary about the comments and voting of other participants is axiomatically uninteresting here. You might not have known that already but hopefully you do now.
If the point of view is 'threads should be gummed up with random meta about who flagged whomst and why', then yes, HN users and moderators regularly 'silence' its expressions and instances as offtopic.
This thread, and the entire discussion taking place around it, are clearly not about the facts of the featured article. They are themselves part of a widespread meta discussion about intellectual dishonesty, censorship and ultimately control of society. Social media and the acceptability and suppression of points of view, whether by individuals or institutions, are part of that discussion, and were central to the last US election.
You may not like it, but to say it isn’t relevant or interesting isn’t true.
Also, who are you? Are you a mod or just someone who enjoys roleplaying as one?
