> Subsidy is the exact term the study uses I'm saying that they intentionally misused the word to confuse readers. The word subsidy has a specific and well kn

> Subsidy is the exact term the study uses I'm saying that they intentionally misused the word to confuse readers. The word subsidy has a specific and well known definition. A subsidy is a sum of money paid to an individual/organization/industry to achieve some goal. Or it is a tax break which is given specifically to an individual/organization/industry. The study uses subsidy to mean A hypothetical tax break given on a nonexistant tax, imagined by the authors, which would make companies pay for their externalities. Not a subsidy. Imagine we levied a tax to right the wrongs of misinformation. Under this tax, the guardian would be paying billions, billions in damages for articles like this! But they're not paying my imaginary taxes. So the goverment is subsidizing the Guardian to the tune of billions of dollars. It's a friggin' fairy tale. Further, the difference between the terms 'subsidy' and 'externality' is not trivial nor accidental. It's the difference between "your government is funneling money into industry x" (this message carries personal implications for the reader, making it likely to result in an emotional response) and "industry x harms the environment" (which is an old song and unlikely to generate an emotional response or reader engagement).