This is accurate, however if you look at any thread you can see an overwhelming consensus of opinion. The diversity of views are not equal - in the sense that there isnt equal number of for and against comments.
In most of the threads I have observed about EU action on Big Tech, the overwhelming majority of thoughts are 'for', with perhaps few dissenting thoughts.
It depends what time of the day you log in too. I'm in the GMT time zone, I can literally see a comment go from +20 upvotes in the morning to negative numbers when Americans start waking up. It really shifts your perspective of the site too, because comments move down or even disappear based on the number of votes.
I would strongly encourage everyone to read HN with `showdead` enabled (it's in your profile page). There aren't actually all that many downvoted comments, and while mosts are low-level trolling, even with `showdead` you see them at the end of the parent thread and they are greyed out, so it's not all that distracting. But being able to see some of the things that get downvoted / killed unjustly (and then vouch & upvote them) is how you get a better HN.
You can "vouch" for them, which makes them non-dead (and upvotable again). But, yes, it does have some karma limit - I'm not sure if the specifics are documented anywhere, the FAQ just says "small karma threshold".
The loudmouths do not necessarily represent a majority of HN users. They're just loud. Some of us find the social-media-bashing threads boring and just go back to our social media.
> substantially less diversity in voting and flagging
I don't think this is true either. I've seen comments swing wildly from one end to the other and back. It's more that comments show a distribution, while voting squashes that distribution into a single result.
In most of the threads I have observed about EU action on Big Tech, the overwhelming majority of thoughts are 'for', with perhaps few dissenting thoughts.