Could we leave this one-sided manichean rhetoric to Reddit and Twitter? Saving the industry is clearly a key motivation but the tinfoil hat theory makes no sense, in most European countries subventions cater to the entire spectrum of the press regardless of political opinion. If anything destroying the press would make it even easier to control the narrative.

It's not just the press either, it's the whole cultural industry that they try to save. I'm not a big fan of protectionism but if you look at the French cultural industry for instance (and contrast it with, say, Italy's) we've had some moderate success preserving it through protectionist regulations (quotas, fixed prices for books, regulations regarding advertising of movies etc...). I'm not very happy with that but pragmatically I can't completely dismiss these regulations since they appear to have had a positive effect on the local industry.

I'm not saying this is the right way to go but I'm always a bit frustrated that many on HN seem to lose all sense of measure and intellectual honesty every time government or regulations are mentioned.

I think this "link tax" is a bad thing but at the same time I also see the very real problem the regulators are trying to fix.

> they work to save a dying industry (most news outlets are running on public subventions)

In my home country you could trace most news outlets back to a few big players and those tend to be in the top 100 rich people of the country. If they are getting public subventions I would see it more as a way for politicians to keep the coverage positive.

This is a great point.

I think there is an earnest attempt to save journalism overall ... but also consider that European industries are static, and especially the press are owned by old, rich families who have considerable influence.