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.

The upside is there, if you know up-front its the basis of the engagement. If its applied retrospectively it sucks, for a number of people.

But curation is not always bad. "it depends"

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.

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”...

(If you happen to know)

Here's a blog post about the change: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/01/22/the-coral-project-i...

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?