And at least 222 people believed it to be true (or else those are some illogical upvotes).
I don't know whether you mean Threads or Bluesky but it sounds like you haven't used either.
And there are plenty rational reasons to have that goal.
There are guidelines and each guideline is mostly loosely encouraged by the community here by downvoting - in effect becoming community standards. However a well written exception can receive upvotes (even though strictly against guidelines) because it is a community and individual judgement mostly gets priority.
Flagging is different because it is a much stronger signal of violation of norms, however it is still mostly a signal from the HN user community.
The moderation balance on HN appears to be quite functional to me (although I'm happy with many guidelines that others fight against).
Just my opinion on the topic.
I think you're trying to fabricate an alternative version of reality while being aware that the facts (i.e., the actual posts in the thread) are not on your side.
"no, they didn't believe it, they were engaging in strategic trolling and vote gaming" as if that doesn't imply a way more malicious frame of mind than some hapless idiot looking at the message and going "yup, seems legit, upvote we go".
(disclaimer: I wasn't in those comments, IDK who's reality is true here)
As someone who did see that thread evolve, let me help you out.
HN (being largely comprised of redditors) were more than happy to amplify pure misinformation because it was politically expedient. The evidence that it was fake was given fairly early on; a lot of people ignored it.
It's certainly a condemnation of the userbase on this forum.
Note that I put all the comments in reverse chronological order because historical vote data isn't available, so which comments are at the top here isn't necessarily reflective of which ones were at the top at the time.
You can judge for yourself whether my summary was misleading.
I think you didn't even bothered to read your own citation.
The first comment literally leads with "This isn't real".
The bulk of replies are questioning the questionable claims, and asking for their sources.
There are indeed a few comments from gullible people, but to frame this as gullible people being prevalent in the thread is outright wrong, as your own source shows.
By my count, five comments expressed some kind of overt skepticism, and another four included a "if this is true" disclaimer without indicating any particular grounds to disbelieve it. The other 21 all either explicitly accepted the story as true, or implicitly didn't care whether it was true or not (e.g., piling onto criticism of Tesla without mentioning the specific controversy).
IMO, at least by the time I saw it, there were more than enough red flags raised to say that having it on HN before more evidence is available is only flamebait.