This is a well known effect and there have been a number of attempts to address it.

Slashdot went through a number of iterations. They initially added a points system and ended up adding a meta-moderation layer to try to address biases in the previous layers. https://slashdot.org/faq/mod-metamod.shtml

Reddit lets viewers choose from a number of sort algorithms that allow them to emphasize posts other than those most heavily upvoted.

Lemmy uses a log scale to try to bring more voices to a conversation after the initial "New" votes come in. https://join-lemmy.org/docs/contributors/07-ranking-algo.htm...

They're all trying to address the issue by offering sort orders which should show the "best" posts at the top. The fundamental problem with all of these is that they assume that everyone agrees on what is "best" and that small set of sort options will allow the majority of people to choose one which matches their ranking of "best".

We've also seen several large companies provide "algorithms" which provide customized ranking lists for individuals. The glaring problem with these approaches is that they rank by what is "best" for the company, not for the individual.

We've been missing is a way for people to choose sort lists that reflect their own views of what is "best". Otherwise the best we'll be able to get is some sort order that some plurality agrees on, even if that plurality isn't even a majority.