I'd argue that this is a misuse of flagging. This isn't spam or an endorsement of their worldview in any way. In fact, it goes out of their way to make the person seem somewhat pathetic. The dialogue taking place about the Internet People is fairly robust, indicating there's value in the content to the HN community.

It's up to the mods to decide whether they think it's acceptable content or not - flagging simply brings it to their attention. I don't think the HN audience needs to spend their time adding such a horribly-acting person to their consciousness. There could be any number of other, non-problematic "internet people" to focus on in an article, and I would welcome such an article being written and/or linked to in place of this one.

Leaving comments to boast about what you flag and moralizing about what kind of content is worthy of attention?

You might be an internet person, my friend.

More like this article, plz. Or we could go back to our usual high brow, attention worthy content of "I asked GPT about a thing and you won't believe what it said"

I am glad you feel the need to think for me.

That story is about a fake-cancellation that Charlie created with his friends against himself. It is some kind of commentary on this very situation of you trying to get this taken down.