> "spiegel.de and bild.de have the main article behind a paywall. They don’t do this for important news."

As a side note:

This seems to me a weird business model, why pay for unimportant news?

Wouldn't it make more sense to bring important news behind a paywall?

Can someone explain? Thanks!

If you paywall important news, everyone will share free articles instead. Does the birdseed press ever paywall?

Edit: compare https://www.lemonde.fr 's cookie/subscription wall with https://www.thesun.co.uk

Thanks for taking the time to answer. Yet I fail to see how this answers to my question (I must be dumb):

"why paying for unimportant news?"

(edit: I don't get the policy from "Le monde" either. For example I see some important news which are paywalled, while other important news are free. Same for unimportant news. It seems the categorization is quite done at random (at least in what I read today).

If you take "Les echos" it's clearer, important news are paywalled, which I find more logical as a business model.)

I won't speak for Le Monde's commercial side, but think the concept is that a subscriber considers themselves as paying for all the news; accepts any "freeriding" on important news as a cost of generating the public good of an informed society; and leaves it to NARGs (should any exist) to account for the value proposition differently.

>Society is split like elsewhere, but the fringe parties like AFD are at 15% in general election weekly question [1]. This is Don Quixotery.

When you factor in most reporting about the American election (I'm American) only give percents in terms of voters (small portion of population), Trump also had ~15%.

This was a very serious incident, and the people who try these things should possibly be executed in a humane manner if this pattern of misbehavior continues.

Whoa, executing them might make them bigger heros in the eyes of their supporters aswell as make the government look like a bigger oppressor. Just ignore the shit out of them like a toddler throwing a tantrum while making sure that they don't hurt themselves or those near them.

Exactly last thing you want are monarchist martyrs.

That's how you ended up needing to arrest a bunch of morons who post all day about wanting to do exactly what they ended up attempting to do.

Instead what needs to happen is if execution is off the table, you very purposefully remind them, repeatedly, that there is nowhere to defect to -- you will not have quiet enjoyment of your Nazi coffeehouse, your Nazi bar, your Nazi... whatever... because the antifascists will not tolerate your behavior and invoke stand your ground the second you even hint at acting on your antisocial urges.

I'd suggest that a humane manner of execution does not exist because murder is fundamentally inhumane.