No, they're not irrelevant. These notices tell people why they can't access certain information. They improve the user experience, otherwise the users will not know why certain information is suddenly inaccessible to them.

Spoken like a problematic ux-er ;-)

Visible but disabled items can be important for discoverability.

Knowing when and where to apply which ux rules is probably more important than knowing all the rules.

FTR: I'm happy to work with what I think are good ux-ers so they certainly do exist.

You can't use Telegram Web if government blocked Telegram website. App have a way around government blocking (they use server push to deliver proxy addresses, so the only ultimate way to block Telegram is to block Apple servers).

The definitions of "irrelevant" and "bad UX" are obviously very subjective. Personally, I don't think good UX means stripping out the ability to see user intent and context just because it reduces friction.

Showing where user generated content has been censored and the rational as to why is definitely a feature I would want to have regardless of how inconvenient it might be - especially in the context of political discussions.

First, I do not think they are irrelevant, but it's probably subjective.

Second, them being irrelevant is certainly not a good reason to forbid those notices.

Third, that they are forbidden makes them all the more relevant.

I don't think they're irrelevant at all, but anyway why would it be forbidden for a developer to include some irrelevant information in their app if they want to?

It conveys very useful information.