I think I see some patterns where topics that used to get downvoted get upvotes instead, and I hope that's because others have decided that they don't like what this says about the community, and so they upvote them on general principle. (The Cynic worries that someone's astroturfing budget ran out).
It seems schizophrenic because there really isn't a hivemind. Rather, there are various mutually antagonistic groups who differ in their beliefs in what the "hivemind" represents (as opposed to "authentic" Hacker News culture,) based on their suspicions about what sinister conspiracy is behind moderation and comments contrary to their point of view. Almost no one here seems to trust that people who disagree with them are ever posting in good faith.
Whether a topic gets upvoted or downvoted seems to depend on which camp gets to it first, and the bias introduced by the first comment, which will inevitably determine how long the topic lasts, barring moderator intervention.
I have noticed this trend as well. That is why I read HN with dead comments enabled, and vouch+upvote a dead comment whenever I think it adds to the discussion (e.g. brings new info or brings up a point or angle that I haven't seen in that thread and makes me stop and think about it for a second or two), regardless of whether or not I agree with that comment.
Sometimes good comments end up forgotten, just because someone got to them first, who disagrees with them and is not intellectually mature enough to handle that.
I think I see some patterns where topics that used to get downvoted get upvotes instead, and I hope that's because others have decided that they don't like what this says about the community, and so they upvote them on general principle. (The Cynic worries that someone's astroturfing budget ran out).