My point was that as more people dogpile on the contrary opinion, the opinion gets "drowned out" and the user potentially feels alienated from the community, thus stops contributing. There is no hard measure preventing them from doing so, but because they felt that their opinion was not wanted in that particular medium, they stopped contributing. Yes, someone could potentially go in there and post a contrary opinion, but when coming into that community, that person would see the same list of ideas posted over and over again they would likely develop the idea that that community is not somewhere their opinion is welcome and thus they would opt out of contributing. Then given enough time, you will reach the point where, "a user will see no opinion but their own," because all the people that did have other opinions gave up arguing and moved somewhere else.
Not all restrictions need to be hard restrictions, you could argue that even algorithmic restrictions are not hard restrictions if you deliberately use tools to counteract the work of that algorithm because algorithmic restrictions are just another form of soft restriction.
That probably does happen, I don't have an idea of how frequently that actually is the situation. For example, we see posts all the time that just skipped over numerous posts to reply directly to the OP. So it seems there is quite a bit of confidence to post in the BG3 forums. Also, I'm sure measures are taken so that forum members don't feel alienated, but it's difficult for forums to be perfect.
Lastly, it's rare for well-thought-out posts backed by data to get dog-piled by opposing views. The posts that get dog-piled usually leave a lot open for interpretation or are minimal statements.
