Yeah, the downvote brigade problem rears its head whenever I try to discuss the ISP side of the network neutrality debate. I don't even necessarily agree with a

Yeah, the downvote brigade problem rears its head whenever I try to discuss the ISP side of the network neutrality debate. I don't even necessarily agree with all of it -- but I feel it's a perspective that is sorely missing in most internet discussions of the topic. Heaven forbid you treat Internet routing and content delivery like a business and try to align profit incentives with societally desired outcomes - the HN opinion seems to be that all Internet peering and access should be free to everyone (nevermind that a lot of companies make a lot of money off of it). I'm of the opinion that posts should be upvoted whether you agree with them or not - if it's a well-spoken argument, it adds to the discussion. Good arguments strengthen everyone: if someone replies to your post with a well-worded argument that you have no answer for, someone else with more knowledge on the subject or a different perspective might have one that reinforces your position. IMO there should be a "mod override" that allows moderators to set the floor on certain controversial posts to 1. This could ensure informative posts don't get buried just because the majority happens to disagree with the opinion presented. HN as a community is pretty good at encouraging discussion and avoiding groupthink, but it's still a problem on certain topics.