While true, I think it was illustrating the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" approach HN takes to Google in general.

> HN takes to Google in general

Not exclusive to HN. Humans just have different opinions.

But HN moderators usually seem to upvote the complaints over the kudos.

Well, Google invades our privacy. Google holds its users hostages to money. I am glad that HN is doing its job to stop Google.

Hostages? I'd say Google is better than most regarding data portability, assuming that's what you're referring to, offering 'takeout' for just about everything.

Personally, I have no idea why people are so upset about WebM and AV1 and etc. Like sure, they're not necessarily God's gift to AV, but they're reasonable enough, and patent unencumbered. Google may be awful, but that doesn't mean the incentives can't align. I can tell you that my incentives are perpendicularly aligned with MPEG-LA's in this situation, so...

You can't please everyone when your service is used by half of the world's population.

wait, what? Are you sure that's true?

I think maybe you're responding sarcastically to yourself while eating this burrito.

The comment was about the internet "hivemind"; no need to be pedantic about it.

Keep in mind that upwards of 95% of people will read comments but not post any themselves (and to address an obvious retort, sure, it'll be a different 95% for each submission). So the general "tone" of the comments absolutely impacts public perception, especially now that practically no-one consumes straight-news without social media commentary.

Redditors use identical arguments: "we're different people!" when their website is the most groupthink-y of all.

Threads are groupthink, but subreddits with diverse topics are less groupthink than you'd think. Different user groups turn out for different headlines, at different times, etc.