That certainly puts a very different angle on how this will be used, and what use cases it's targeted towards.
From prior experience, Vox outlets are extremely stringent about what they permit in their comments: specifically, only people who agree or can extend the arguments of a given article further are preserved; or quibbles about minor details. No true discussion is allowed outside the article's bubble.
Vox itself removed comments after a time, probably because this bubble could not reasonably be preserved in response to the majority of their articles.
The Verge is somewhat more open, depending on the topic and whether it is technical or political in nature.
Polygon's Ben Kuchera is a caustically aggressive moderator, and is the primary one I saw behaving in this manner, in addition to antagonizing commenters who disagreed with an article's premise; doubly so if he himself wrote the article.
There's no "engagement." It just ends up with banal "I agree" posts that add nothing to the article. And it doesn't add many to them, Polygon's comment sections tend to be tiny and not worth reading, for example. You get better news and engagement on reddit.
With this recent product that is also closely integrated with Vox properties, I'd say this is a deeply concerning move how closely the two are becoming entangled.
Indeed. Some creepy language on the Scroll site, e.g. “With Scroll, journalists get paid to report the stories important to democracy [...]”
These Vox-alikes seem to fancy themselves arbiters of meaning with regard to “journalism” and “democracy”. Anything which disagrees with their personal definitions must be “alt-right”...
It writes: "After 3.5 years at Mozilla, the time is right for Coral software to move further into the journalism space, and grow with the support of an organization grounded in that industry", and "... The Coral Project will receive the backing of a large company ...". — However, Vox could back the project, also if it was still led my Mozilla, right. Still unclear to me why Mozilla didn't want to continue leading the project? Maybe Talk was too different from other things Mozilla does, and maybe it cost money and didn't bring any revenue?
I don't really have inside knowledge, but I think if the opportunity comes to graduate a project to external management and resourcing the Mozilla Foundation is probably going to take it. Quite a few projects are managed by Mozilla Foundation but receive very substantive external funding, and I think that was the case for Coral. That grant-based funding is often time limited and requires a bunch of hustling, so having a long-term committed sponsor would be attractive.
Or maybe Mozilla wanted to free those resources to work on other things? The project got to "good enough" state and they started looking for a new maintainer?
From my experience, it's the "Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *" response header that causes the problem. So, it's in the way Chrome uses/enforces cross-origin HTTP request/response headers.
That's assuming the metrics they measure actually means anything. It's been proven many times that all the "science" behind these metrics and the resulting numbers are meaningless.
This is a long-standing issue and many solutions have been devised. Regardless of most solutions, it will probably always fail because people don't want to be bothered with remembering colors, images, configuring PGP, etc. Case in point, ask anyone how much they are annoyed by reCAPTCHA.
#omnibox-ui-hide-steady-state-url-scheme / #omnibox-ui-hide-steady-state-url-trivial-subdomains / #omnibox-ui-hide-steady-state-url-path-query-and-ref / #omnibox-ui-one-click-unelide