A German law requiring social media companies like Facebook and Twitter to quickly remove hate speech from their sites is set to be revised following criticism that too much online content is being blocked,according to officials The law.Which came into full force on Jan.I,is the most ambitious effort by a western democracy to control what appears on social media.It aims to ensure Germanys tough prohibitions against hate speech,including pro-Nazi ideology,are enforced online by requiring sites to remove banned content within 24 hours or face fines of up to 50 million euros（$62 million）.The law,called NetzDG for short,is an international test case and how it plays out is being closely watched by other countries considering similar measures German politicians forming a new government told Reuters they want to add an amendment to help web users get incorrectly deleted material restored online.The lawmakers are also pushing for social media firms to set up an independent body to review and respond to reports of offensive content from the public,rather than the individual companies doing that themselves.Such a system,similar to how video games are policed in germany,could allow a more considered approach to complex decisions aboutwhether to block content,legal experts say The proposed changes follow widespread criticism from opponents of the law,including free speech campaigners and the Association of German Journalists,who say the threat of hefty fines is prompting internet firms to err on the side of caution and block more content than is necessary.They point to several high-profile cases,including when a satirical magazine's Twitter account was blocked after it parodied anti-Muslim comments Facebook,which says it has 1,200 people in Germany working on reviewing posts out of 14,000 globally responsible for moderating content and account security,said it was not pursuing a strategy to delete more than necessary"."People think deleting illegal content is easy but it's not,"said Richard Allan,Facebooks vice president for EMEA public policy."Facebook reviews every NetzDG report carefully and with legal expertise,where appropriate.When our legal experts advise us,we follow their assessment so we can meet our obligations under the law,Twitter declined to comment on how it is implementing the law,while Google's You Tube said it would continue to invest heavily in staff and technology to comply with NetzDG Among other countries considering similar measures,France is looking at rules to block"fake news Britain is seeking to stop online harassment of politicians and Japan is looking to restrict suicidal posts after a suspected serial killer found his victims by trawling TwitterWhy did lawmakers insist on a third-party to determine whether users'speech violates the law?A.Because the social media companies are not capable enough to do the job srans.diB.Because it will be more effective to make people cautious to block contentsC.Because it helps to restore the mistakenly deleted information more quicklyD.Because it is similar to the regulating policies of online video games
A German law requiring social media companies like Facebook and Twitter to quickly remove hate speech from their sites is set to be revised following criticism that too much online content is being blocked,according to officials The law.Which came into full force on Jan.I,is the most ambitious effort by a western democracy to control what appears on social media.It aims to ensure Germanys tough prohibitions against hate speech,including pro-Nazi ideology,are enforced online by requiring sites to remove banned content within 24 hours or face fines of up to 50 million euros（$62 million）.The law,called NetzDG for short,is an international test case and how it plays out is being closely watched by other countries considering similar measures German politicians forming a new government told Reuters they want to add an amendment to help web users get incorrectly deleted material restored online.The lawmakers are also pushing for social media firms to set up an independent body to review and respond to reports of offensive content from the public,rather than the individual companies doing that themselves.Such a system,similar to how video games are policed in germany,could allow a more considered approach to complex decisions aboutwhether to block content,legal experts say The proposed changes follow widespread criticism from opponents of the law,including free speech campaigners and the Association of German Journalists,who say the threat of hefty fines is prompting internet firms to err on the side of caution and block more content than is necessary.They point to several high-profile cases,including when a satirical magazine's Twitter account was blocked after it parodied anti-Muslim comments Facebook,which says it has 1,200 people in Germany working on reviewing posts out of 14,000 globally responsible for moderating content and account security,said it was not pursuing a strategy to delete more than necessary"."People think deleting illegal content is easy but it's not,"said Richard Allan,Facebooks vice president for EMEA public policy."Facebook reviews every NetzDG report carefully and with legal expertise,where appropriate.When our legal experts advise us,we follow their assessment so we can meet our obligations under the law,Twitter declined to comment on how it is implementing the law,while Google's You Tube said it would continue to invest heavily in staff and technology to comply with NetzDG Among other countries considering similar measures,France is looking at rules to block"fake news Britain is seeking to stop online harassment of politicians and Japan is looking to restrict suicidal posts after a suspected serial killer found his victims by trawling Twitter
Why did lawmakers insist on a third-party to determine whether users'speech violates the law?
Why did lawmakers insist on a third-party to determine whether users'speech violates the law?
A.Because the social media companies are not capable enough to do the job srans.di
B.Because it will be more effective to make people cautious to block contents
C.Because it helps to restore the mistakenly deleted information more quickly
D.Because it is similar to the regulating policies of online video games
B.Because it will be more effective to make people cautious to block contents
C.Because it helps to restore the mistakenly deleted information more quickly
D.Because it is similar to the regulating policies of online video games
参考解析
解析：细节题。根据题干关键词a third-party可对应到文中第三段。
相关考题：
阅读理解 判断给出的语句是否正确，正确的在括号内写(T)不符的在括号内写(F)It is amazing to note that the Internet is still such a new device, and yet it is one of the fastest and most powerful media tools. But think about it for a moment. On the Internet, a big online company can be run by only two guys in their garage. So it is only reasonable then, that people shopping online would be a little leery of the security levels.Internet giants such as Microsoft knew consumer confidence was the key to getting virtual (虚拟的) shopping off the ground, and they work hard to make people feel safe to shop online.Credit card companies, too, quickly saw the potential For online shopping, and have installed things like online shopping insurance for people. If you ever have a problem with your online credit purchases, many credit card companies will happily refund (退还) your money and then set their claws on the company that wronged you。 Now that’s buying power!There are other bonuses for online shoppers, of course. No line-ups,for one. No annoying mall shopping carts with broken wheels and kids crying because their parents won’t get them what they want.When shopping on1ine, consumers can sit down, have a coffee, and wear their slippers, not having to worry about their hair or parking, and just clicking through sale after sale.Comparison shopping couldn’t be any easier. And thanks to courier companies (快递公司) getting in on the act you never need to wait longer than a day or two to get those all important purchases delivered right to your door.No wonder so many companies are shaking their heads at traditional retailing and instead looking to the “virtual” world to attract online shoppers.( ) 26、 The underlined word “leery” in the first paragraph means being very sure.( ) 27、 Consumer confidence in online shopping mainly relies on security in shopping.( ) 28、 Internet giants, traditional retailers, courier companies and credit card companies have made contributions to the popularity of online shopping.( ) 29、 The author think of the current online shopping as safe, convenient and fast.( ) 30、 Nowadays many companies are trying to cooperate with the online shoppers instead of traditional retailers.
Although there are disagreements over the definition of revolution,there is a standard view that revolutions are successful social movements on a much grander（ ）.That is,involving more people and much more social change.Although social movement like the U.S.Civil RightsMovement may be working to enact some law or produce some reform in the society,revolutions like the Chinese Revolution are aimed at major social change.A.levelB.scaleC.degreeD.range
Priests,teachers and parents have for generations advised their wards io think twice before speaking,to count to ten when angry and to get a good night's sleep before making big decisions.Social networks care little for seconcl thoughts.Services such as Facebook and Twitter are built to maximise"virality",making it irresistible to share,like and retweet things.They are getting better at it:fully half of the 40 most-retweeted tweets clate from January last year.Starting this month,however,users of WhatsApp,a messaging service owned by Facebook,will find it harder to spread content.They will no longer be able to forward messages to more than 20 0thers in one go,down from more than 100.The goal is not to prevent people from sharing information-only to get users to think about what they are passing on.It Js an idea other platforms should consider copying.Skeptics point out that WhatsApp can afford to hinder the spread of information on its platform because it does not rely on the sale of adverrisements to make money.Slowing down sharing would be more damaging to social networks such as Facebook and Twitter,which make money by keeping users on their sites and showing them ads.Their shareholders would surely refuse anything that lessens engagement.Sure enough,Facebook's shares fell by 23%in after-hours trading,partly because Mark Zuckerberg,its boss,said that its priority would be to get users to interact more with each other,not to promote viral content.Yet the short-term pain caused by a decline in virality may be in the long-term interests of the social networks.Fake news and concerns about cligital addiction,among other things,have already damaged the reputations of tech platforms.Moves to slow sharing could lielp see off harsh action by regulators and lawmakers.They could also improve its service.Instagram,a photo-sharing social network also owned by Facebook,shows that you can be successful without resorting to virality.It offers no sharing options and does not allow links but boasts more than a billion monthly users.It has remained relatively free of misinformation.Facebook does not break out Instagram's revenues,but it is thought to make money.The need to constrain virality is becoming ever more urgent.About half the world uses the internet today.The next 3.8bn users to go online will be poorer and less familiar with media.The examples of deceptions,misinformation and violence in India suggest that the capacity to manipulate people online is even greater when they first gain access to cligital communications.Small changes can have big effects:social networks have become expert at making their services compulsive by adjusting shades of blue and the size of buttons.They have the knowledge and the tools to maximise the sharing of information.That gives them the power to limit its virality,too.The advice of priests,teachers and parents is brought up toA.stress the necessity for social networks to circulate them.B.highlight the sharing without thinking on social networks.C.warn people against the danger of indulging in virtual life.D.urge social networks to build services more cautiously.
Priests,teachers and parents have for generations advised their wards io think twice before speaking,to count to ten when angry and to get a good night's sleep before making big decisions.Social networks care little for seconcl thoughts.Services such as Facebook and Twitter are built to maximise"virality",making it irresistible to share,like and retweet things.They are getting better at it:fully half of the 40 most-retweeted tweets clate from January last year.Starting this month,however,users of WhatsApp,a messaging service owned by Facebook,will find it harder to spread content.They will no longer be able to forward messages to more than 20 0thers in one go,down from more than 100.The goal is not to prevent people from sharing information-only to get users to think about what they are passing on.It Js an idea other platforms should consider copying.Skeptics point out that WhatsApp can afford to hinder the spread of information on its platform because it does not rely on the sale of adverrisements to make money.Slowing down sharing would be more damaging to social networks such as Facebook and Twitter,which make money by keeping users on their sites and showing them ads.Their shareholders would surely refuse anything that lessens engagement.Sure enough,Facebook's shares fell by 23%in after-hours trading,partly because Mark Zuckerberg,its boss,said that its priority would be to get users to interact more with each other,not to promote viral content.Yet the short-term pain caused by a decline in virality may be in the long-term interests of the social networks.Fake news and concerns about cligital addiction,among other things,have already damaged the reputations of tech platforms.Moves to slow sharing could lielp see off harsh action by regulators and lawmakers.They could also improve its service.Instagram,a photo-sharing social network also owned by Facebook,shows that you can be successful without resorting to virality.It offers no sharing options and does not allow links but boasts more than a billion monthly users.It has remained relatively free of misinformation.Facebook does not break out Instagram's revenues,but it is thought to make money.The need to constrain virality is becoming ever more urgent.About half the world uses the internet today.The next 3.8bn users to go online will be poorer and less familiar with media.The examples of deceptions,misinformation and violence in India suggest that the capacity to manipulate people online is even greater when they first gain access to cligital communications.Small changes can have big effects:social networks have become expert at making their services compulsive by adjusting shades of blue and the size of buttons.They have the knowledge and the tools to maximise the sharing of information.That gives them the power to limit its virality,too.WhatsApp's new move is intended toA.prevent users from spreading content.B.get users to interact more with each other.C.put a limit on users'overuse of social networks.D.get users to think twice before sharing content.
For the first time on record,the number of advertising-specific jobs in the U.S.is declining in the middle of an economic expansion,according to government data.What's going on?It's certainly not a case of fewer advertisements.The typical American has gone from seeing about 500 ads each day in the 1970s to about 5,000 today,according to a common industry statistic.That is one corporate message for roughly every 10 seconds of waking life.Instead,the mysterious decline can be explained by two developments.First,there are Facebook and Google.They are the largest advertising companies in the world-and,quite likely,the largest in the history of the world.Last year,90 percent of the growth of the digital-advertising business went to just these two firms.Facebook and Google are so profitable because they use their enormous scale and data to deliver targeted advertising at a low cost.This has forced the world's large advertising firms to preserve their profitability through a series of mergers,accompanied by jobs cut.s in the name of efficiency.The emergence of an advertising duopoly has coincided with the rise of"programmatic advertising,"a term that essentially means"companies using algorithms to buy and place ads in those little boxes all over the internet."As any Macl Men fan might intuit,advertising has long been a relationship-driven business,in which multimillion-dollar contracts are hammered out over one-on-one meetings,countless lunches,and even more-countless drinks.With programmatic technology,however,companies can buy access to specific audiences across several publishing platforms at once,bypassing the work of building relationships with each one.That process produces more ads and requires fewer people-or,at least,fewer traditional advertising jobs and more technical jobs.Second,there is the merging of the advertising and entertainment businesses.As smartphone screens have edged out TV as the most important real estate for media,companies have invested more in"branded content"-corporate-sponsored media,such as an article or video,that resembles traditional entertainment more than it does traditional advertising.Some of the most prominent names in journalism,such as The New York Times,BuzzFeed,Vice,and The Atlantic,are owned by companies that have launched their own branded-content shops,which operate as stand-alone divisions.As many media companies have tried to become more like advertising companies,the value of the average"creative-account win,"an ad-industry term for a new contract,has declined,falling by about 40 percent between 2016 and 2017.So there are two major themes of the decline of advertising jobs,one that has to do with the companies that now create them and one that has to do with the way brands prefer to market themselves nowadays.In short,the future of the advertising business is being moved to technology companies managing ad networks and media companies making branded content-that is,away from the ad agencies.Which of the following is true of"branded content"?A.It is produced by media companies.B.It is similar to traditional advertising.C.It advertises famous journals.D.lts value has declined in recent years.
Text 3 The rough guide to marketing success used to be that you got what you paid for.No longer.While traditional“paid”media–such as television commercials and print advertisements–still play a major role,companies today can exploit many alternative forms of media.Consumers passionate about a product may create“owned”media by sending e-mail alerts about products and sales to customers registered with its Web site.The way consumers now approach the broad range of factors beyond conventional paid media.Paid and owned media are controlled by marketers promoting their own products.For earned media,such marketers act as the initiator for users’responses.But in some cases,one marketer’s owned media become another marketer’s paid media–for instance,when an e-commerce retailer sells ad space on its Web site.We define such sold media as owned media whose traffic is so strong that other organizations place their content or e-commerce engines within that environment.This trend,which we believe is still in its infancy,effectively began with retailers and travel providers such as airlines and hotels and will no doubt go further.Johnson&Johnson,for example,has created BabyCenter,a stand-alone media property that promotes complementary and even competitive products.Besides generating income,the presence of other marketers makes the site seem objective,gives companies opportunities to learn valuable information about the appeal of other companies’marketing,and may help expand user traffic for all companies concerned.The same dramatic technological changes that have provided marketers with more（and more diverse）communications choices have also increased the risk that passionate consumers will voice their opinions in quicker,more visible,and much more damaging ways.Such hijacked media are the opposite of earned media:an asset or campaign becomes hostage to consumers,other stakeholders,or activists who make negative allegations about a brand or product.Members of social networks,for instance,are learning that they can hijack media to apply pressure on the businesses that originally created them.If that happens,passionate consumers would try to persuade others to boycott products,putting the reputation of the target company at risk.In such a case,the company’s response may not be sufficiently quick or thoughtful,and the learning curve has been steep.Toyota Motor,for example,alleviated some of the damage from its recall crisis earlier this year with a relatively quick and well-orchestrated social-media response campaign,which included efforts to engage with consumers directly on sites such as Twitter and the social-news site Digg.31.Consumers may create“earned”media when they areA.obscssed with online shopping at certain Web sites.B.inspired by product-promoting e-mails sent to them.C.eager to help their friends promote quality products.D.enthusiastic about recommending their favorite products.
Text 3 The rough guide to marketing success used to be that you got what you paid for.No longer.While traditional“paid”media–such as television commercials and print advertisements–still play a major role,companies today can exploit many alternative forms of media.Consumers passionate about a product may create“owned”media by sending e-mail alerts about products and sales to customers registered with its Web site.The way consumers now approach the broad range of factors beyond conventional paid media.Paid and owned media are controlled by marketers promoting their own products.For earned media,such marketers act as the initiator for users’responses.But in some cases,one marketer’s owned media become another marketer’s paid media–for instance,when an e-commerce retailer sells ad space on its Web site.We define such sold media as owned media whose traffic is so strong that other organizations place their content or e-commerce engines within that environment.This trend,which we believe is still in its infancy,effectively began with retailers and travel providers such as airlines and hotels and will no doubt go further.Johnson&Johnson,for example,has created BabyCenter,a stand-alone media property that promotes complementary and even competitive products.Besides generating income,the presence of other marketers makes the site seem objective,gives companies opportunities to learn valuable information about the appeal of other companies’marketing,and may help expand user traffic for all companies concerned.The same dramatic technological changes that have provided marketers with more（and more diverse）communications choices have also increased the risk that passionate consumers will voice their opinions in quicker,more visible,and much more damaging ways.Such hijacked media are the opposite of earned media:an asset or campaign becomes hostage to consumers,other stakeholders,or activists who make negative allegations about a brand or product.Members of social networks,for instance,are learning that they can hijack media to apply pressure on the businesses that originally created them.If that happens,passionate consumers would try to persuade others to boycott products,putting the reputation of the target company at risk.In such a case,the company’s response may not be sufficiently quick or thoughtful,and the learning curve has been steep.Toyota Motor,for example,alleviated some of the damage from its recall crisis earlier this year with a relatively quick and well-orchestrated social-media response campaign,which included efforts to engage with consumers directly on sites such as Twitter and the social-news site Digg.35.Which of the following is the text mainly about?A.Alternatives to conventional paid media.B.Conflict between hijacked and earned media.C.Dominance of hijacked media.D.Popularity of owned media.
Priests,teachers and parents have for generations advised their wards io think twice before speaking,to count to ten when angry and to get a good night's sleep before making big decisions.Social networks care little for seconcl thoughts.Services such as Facebook and Twitter are built to maximise"virality",making it irresistible to share,like and retweet things.They are getting better at it:fully half of the 40 most-retweeted tweets clate from January last year.Starting this month,however,users of WhatsApp,a messaging service owned by Facebook,will find it harder to spread content.They will no longer be able to forward messages to more than 20 0thers in one go,down from more than 100.The goal is not to prevent people from sharing information-only to get users to think about what they are passing on.It Js an idea other platforms should consider copying.Skeptics point out that WhatsApp can afford to hinder the spread of information on its platform because it does not rely on the sale of adverrisements to make money.Slowing down sharing would be more damaging to social networks such as Facebook and Twitter,which make money by keeping users on their sites and showing them ads.Their shareholders would surely refuse anything that lessens engagement.Sure enough,Facebook's shares fell by 23%in after-hours trading,partly because Mark Zuckerberg,its boss,said that its priority would be to get users to interact more with each other,not to promote viral content.Yet the short-term pain caused by a decline in virality may be in the long-term interests of the social networks.Fake news and concerns about cligital addiction,among other things,have already damaged the reputations of tech platforms.Moves to slow sharing could lielp see off harsh action by regulators and lawmakers.They could also improve its service.Instagram,a photo-sharing social network also owned by Facebook,shows that you can be successful without resorting to virality.It offers no sharing options and does not allow links but boasts more than a billion monthly users.It has remained relatively free of misinformation.Facebook does not break out Instagram's revenues,but it is thought to make money.The need to constrain virality is becoming ever more urgent.About half the world uses the internet today.The next 3.8bn users to go online will be poorer and less familiar with media.The examples of deceptions,misinformation and violence in India suggest that the capacity to manipulate people online is even greater when they first gain access to cligital communications.Small changes can have big effects:social networks have become expert at making their services compulsive by adjusting shades of blue and the size of buttons.They have the knowledge and the tools to maximise the sharing of information.That gives them the power to limit its virality,too.Skeptics hold that slowing down sharing wouldA.fail to curb viralityB.be bad for users.C.do no good to advertisers.D.go against shareholders.
Priests,teachers and parents have for generations advised their wards io think twice before speaking,to count to ten when angry and to get a good night's sleep before making big decisions.Social networks care little for seconcl thoughts.Services such as Facebook and Twitter are built to maximise"virality",making it irresistible to share,like and retweet things.They are getting better at it:fully half of the 40 most-retweeted tweets clate from January last year.Starting this month,however,users of WhatsApp,a messaging service owned by Facebook,will find it harder to spread content.They will no longer be able to forward messages to more than 20 0thers in one go,down from more than 100.The goal is not to prevent people from sharing information-only to get users to think about what they are passing on.It Js an idea other platforms should consider copying.Skeptics point out that WhatsApp can afford to hinder the spread of information on its platform because it does not rely on the sale of adverrisements to make money.Slowing down sharing would be more damaging to social networks such as Facebook and Twitter,which make money by keeping users on their sites and showing them ads.Their shareholders would surely refuse anything that lessens engagement.Sure enough,Facebook's shares fell by 23%in after-hours trading,partly because Mark Zuckerberg,its boss,said that its priority would be to get users to interact more with each other,not to promote viral content.Yet the short-term pain caused by a decline in virality may be in the long-term interests of the social networks.Fake news and concerns about cligital addiction,among other things,have already damaged the reputations of tech platforms.Moves to slow sharing could lielp see off harsh action by regulators and lawmakers.They could also improve its service.Instagram,a photo-sharing social network also owned by Facebook,shows that you can be successful without resorting to virality.It offers no sharing options and does not allow links but boasts more than a billion monthly users.It has remained relatively free of misinformation.Facebook does not break out Instagram's revenues,but it is thought to make money.The need to constrain virality is becoming ever more urgent.About half the world uses the internet today.The next 3.8bn users to go online will be poorer and less familiar with media.The examples of deceptions,misinformation and violence in India suggest that the capacity to manipulate people online is even greater when they first gain access to cligital communications.Small changes can have big effects:social networks have become expert at making their services compulsive by adjusting shades of blue and the size of buttons.They have the knowledge and the tools to maximise the sharing of information.That gives them the power to limit its virality,too.The author suggests social networks shouldA.limit the sharing of information.B.publicize the knowledge about virality.C.avoid making further small changes.D.get more control over new netizens.
A German law requiring social media companies like Facebook and Twitter to quickly remove hate speech from their sites is set to be revised following criticism that too much online content is being blocked,according to officials The law.Which came into full force on Jan.I,is the most ambitious effort by a western democracy to control what appears on social media.It aims to ensure Germanys tough prohibitions against hate speech,including pro-Nazi ideology,are enforced online by requiring sites to remove banned content within 24 hours or face fines of up to 50 million euros（$62 million）.The law,called NetzDG for short,is an international test case and how it plays out is being closely watched by other countries considering similar measures German politicians forming a new government told Reuters they want to add an amendment to help web users get incorrectly deleted material restored online.The lawmakers are also pushing for social media firms to set up an independent body to review and respond to reports of offensive content from the public,rather than the individual companies doing that themselves.Such a system,similar to how video games are policed in germany,could allow a more considered approach to complex decisions aboutwhether to block content,legal experts say The proposed changes follow widespread criticism from opponents of the law,including free speech campaigners and the Association of German Journalists,who say the threat of hefty fines is prompting internet firms to err on the side of caution and block more content than is necessary.They point to several high-profile cases,including when a satirical magazine's Twitter account was blocked after it parodied anti-Muslim comments Facebook,which says it has 1,200 people in Germany working on reviewing posts out of 14,000 globally responsible for moderating content and account security,said it was not pursuing a strategy to delete more than necessary"."People think deleting illegal content is easy but it's not,"said Richard Allan,Facebooks vice president for EMEA public policy."Facebook reviews every NetzDG report carefully and with legal expertise,where appropriate.When our legal experts advise us,we follow their assessment so we can meet our obligations under the law,Twitter declined to comment on how it is implementing the law,while Google's You Tube said it would continue to invest heavily in staff and technology to comply with NetzDG Among other countries considering similar measures,France is looking at rules to block"fake news Britain is seeking to stop online harassment of politicians and Japan is looking to restrict suicidal posts after a suspected serial killer found his victims by trawling TwitterWhat can be inferred from the last paragraph?A.It's urgent for all the countries in the world to block hate speech.B.Many countries are considering blocking illegal internet content.C.Many countries have taken measures to resist negative online contentsD.Different countries are confronting with different online problems
Priests,teachers and parents have for generations advised their wards io think twice before speaking,to count to ten when angry and to get a good night's sleep before making big decisions.Social networks care little for seconcl thoughts.Services such as Facebook and Twitter are built to maximise"virality",making it irresistible to share,like and retweet things.They are getting better at it:fully half of the 40 most-retweeted tweets clate from January last year.Starting this month,however,users of WhatsApp,a messaging service owned by Facebook,will find it harder to spread content.They will no longer be able to forward messages to more than 20 0thers in one go,down from more than 100.The goal is not to prevent people from sharing information-only to get users to think about what they are passing on.It Js an idea other platforms should consider copying.Skeptics point out that WhatsApp can afford to hinder the spread of information on its platform because it does not rely on the sale of adverrisements to make money.Slowing down sharing would be more damaging to social networks such as Facebook and Twitter,which make money by keeping users on their sites and showing them ads.Their shareholders would surely refuse anything that lessens engagement.Sure enough,Facebook's shares fell by 23%in after-hours trading,partly because Mark Zuckerberg,its boss,said that its priority would be to get users to interact more with each other,not to promote viral content.Yet the short-term pain caused by a decline in virality may be in the long-term interests of the social networks.Fake news and concerns about cligital addiction,among other things,have already damaged the reputations of tech platforms.Moves to slow sharing could lielp see off harsh action by regulators and lawmakers.They could also improve its service.Instagram,a photo-sharing social network also owned by Facebook,shows that you can be successful without resorting to virality.It offers no sharing options and does not allow links but boasts more than a billion monthly users.It has remained relatively free of misinformation.Facebook does not break out Instagram's revenues,but it is thought to make money.The need to constrain virality is becoming ever more urgent.About half the world uses the internet today.The next 3.8bn users to go online will be poorer and less familiar with media.The examples of deceptions,misinformation and violence in India suggest that the capacity to manipulate people online is even greater when they first gain access to cligital communications.Small changes can have big effects:social networks have become expert at making their services compulsive by adjusting shades of blue and the size of buttons.They have the knowledge and the tools to maximise the sharing of information.That gives them the power to limit its virality,too.It can be inferred from Paragraphs 4 and 5 that controlling virality couldA.eliminate concerns about digital addiction.B.keep a social network free of misinformationC.contribute to the success of a social network.D.exempt a social network from harsh regulation
A German law requiring social media companies like Facebook and Twitter to quickly remove hate speech from their sites is set to be revised following criticism that too much online content is being blocked,according to officials The law.Which came into full force on Jan.I,is the most ambitious effort by a western democracy to control what appears on social media.It aims to ensure Germanys tough prohibitions against hate speech,including pro-Nazi ideology,are enforced online by requiring sites to remove banned content within 24 hours or face fines of up to 50 million euros（$62 million）.The law,called NetzDG for short,is an international test case and how it plays out is being closely watched by other countries considering similar measures German politicians forming a new government told Reuters they want to add an amendment to help web users get incorrectly deleted material restored online.The lawmakers are also pushing for social media firms to set up an independent body to review and respond to reports of offensive content from the public,rather than the individual companies doing that themselves.Such a system,similar to how video games are policed in germany,could allow a more considered approach to complex decisions aboutwhether to block content,legal experts say The proposed changes follow widespread criticism from opponents of the law,including free speech campaigners and the Association of German Journalists,who say the threat of hefty fines is prompting internet firms to err on the side of caution and block more content than is necessary.They point to several high-profile cases,including when a satirical magazine's Twitter account was blocked after it parodied anti-Muslim comments Facebook,which says it has 1,200 people in Germany working on reviewing posts out of 14,000 globally responsible for moderating content and account security,said it was not pursuing a strategy to delete more than necessary"."People think deleting illegal content is easy but it's not,"said Richard Allan,Facebooks vice president for EMEA public policy."Facebook reviews every NetzDG report carefully and with legal expertise,where appropriate.When our legal experts advise us,we follow their assessment so we can meet our obligations under the law,Twitter declined to comment on how it is implementing the law,while Google's You Tube said it would continue to invest heavily in staff and technology to comply with NetzDG Among other countries considering similar measures,France is looking at rules to block"fake news Britain is seeking to stop online harassment of politicians and Japan is looking to restrict suicidal posts after a suspected serial killer found his victims by trawling TwitterIt can be inferred from the 4th paragraph that the proposed changesA.caused the criticism from opponents of the legislations and German journalistsB.stimulated the opposition of free speech campaigners and German journalistsC.originated from the threat of hefty fines negatively influencing internet firmsD.came from the blocked content on a satirical magazine's Twitter account
For the first time on record,the number of advertising-specific jobs in the U.S.is declining in the middle of an economic expansion,according to government data.What's going on?It's certainly not a case of fewer advertisements.The typical American has gone from seeing about 500 ads each day in the 1970s to about 5,000 today,according to a common industry statistic.That is one corporate message for roughly every 10 seconds of waking life.Instead,the mysterious decline can be explained by two developments.First,there are Facebook and Google.They are the largest advertising companies in the world-and,quite likely,the largest in the history of the world.Last year,90 percent of the growth of the digital-advertising business went to just these two firms.Facebook and Google are so profitable because they use their enormous scale and data to deliver targeted advertising at a low cost.This has forced the world's large advertising firms to preserve their profitability through a series of mergers,accompanied by jobs cut.s in the name of efficiency.The emergence of an advertising duopoly has coincided with the rise of"programmatic advertising,"a term that essentially means"companies using algorithms to buy and place ads in those little boxes all over the internet."As any Macl Men fan might intuit,advertising has long been a relationship-driven business,in which multimillion-dollar contracts are hammered out over one-on-one meetings,countless lunches,and even more-countless drinks.With programmatic technology,however,companies can buy access to specific audiences across several publishing platforms at once,bypassing the work of building relationships with each one.That process produces more ads and requires fewer people-or,at least,fewer traditional advertising jobs and more technical jobs.Second,there is the merging of the advertising and entertainment businesses.As smartphone screens have edged out TV as the most important real estate for media,companies have invested more in"branded content"-corporate-sponsored media,such as an article or video,that resembles traditional entertainment more than it does traditional advertising.Some of the most prominent names in journalism,such as The New York Times,BuzzFeed,Vice,and The Atlantic,are owned by companies that have launched their own branded-content shops,which operate as stand-alone divisions.As many media companies have tried to become more like advertising companies,the value of the average"creative-account win,"an ad-industry term for a new contract,has declined,falling by about 40 percent between 2016 and 2017.So there are two major themes of the decline of advertising jobs,one that has to do with the companies that now create them and one that has to do with the way brands prefer to market themselves nowadays.In short,the future of the advertising business is being moved to technology companies managing ad networks and media companies making branded content-that is,away from the ad agencies.The underlined phrase"the companies"（Line 2,Para.6）mainly refers toA.ad agencies.B.media companies.C.Facebook and Google.D.branded content makers.
A German law requiring social media companies like Facebook and Twitter to quickly remove hate speech from their sites is set to be revised following criticism that too much online content is being blocked,according to officials The law.Which came into full force on Jan.I,is the most ambitious effort by a western democracy to control what appears on social media.It aims to ensure Germanys tough prohibitions against hate speech,including pro-Nazi ideology,are enforced online by requiring sites to remove banned content within 24 hours or face fines of up to 50 million euros（$62 million）.The law,called NetzDG for short,is an international test case and how it plays out is being closely watched by other countries considering similar measures German politicians forming a new government told Reuters they want to add an amendment to help web users get incorrectly deleted material restored online.The lawmakers are also pushing for social media firms to set up an independent body to review and respond to reports of offensive content from the public,rather than the individual companies doing that themselves.Such a system,similar to how video games are policed in germany,could allow a more considered approach to complex decisions aboutwhether to block content,legal experts say The proposed changes follow widespread criticism from opponents of the law,including free speech campaigners and the Association of German Journalists,who say the threat of hefty fines is prompting internet firms to err on the side of caution and block more content than is necessary.They point to several high-profile cases,including when a satirical magazine's Twitter account was blocked after it parodied anti-Muslim comments Facebook,which says it has 1,200 people in Germany working on reviewing posts out of 14,000 globally responsible for moderating content and account security,said it was not pursuing a strategy to delete more than necessary"."People think deleting illegal content is easy but it's not,"said Richard Allan,Facebooks vice president for EMEA public policy."Facebook reviews every NetzDG report carefully and with legal expertise,where appropriate.When our legal experts advise us,we follow their assessment so we can meet our obligations under the law,Twitter declined to comment on how it is implementing the law,while Google's You Tube said it would continue to invest heavily in staff and technology to comply with NetzDG Among other countries considering similar measures,France is looking at rules to block"fake news Britain is seeking to stop online harassment of politicians and Japan is looking to restrict suicidal posts after a suspected serial killer found his victims by trawling TwitterThe German law about deleting the hate speech will be revised in thatA.it incurs criticism of the publicB.the official blocks too much criticismC.it leads to chaotic online spacesD.it distorts people's understanding
A German law requiring social media companies like Facebook and Twitter to quickly remove hate speech from their sites is set to be revised following criticism that too much online content is being blocked,according to officials The law.Which came into full force on Jan.I,is the most ambitious effort by a western democracy to control what appears on social media.It aims to ensure Germanys tough prohibitions against hate speech,including pro-Nazi ideology,are enforced online by requiring sites to remove banned content within 24 hours or face fines of up to 50 million euros（$62 million）.The law,called NetzDG for short,is an international test case and how it plays out is being closely watched by other countries considering similar measures German politicians forming a new government told Reuters they want to add an amendment to help web users get incorrectly deleted material restored online.The lawmakers are also pushing for social media firms to set up an independent body to review and respond to reports of offensive content from the public,rather than the individual companies doing that themselves.Such a system,similar to how video games are policed in germany,could allow a more considered approach to complex decisions aboutwhether to block content,legal experts say The proposed changes follow widespread criticism from opponents of the law,including free speech campaigners and the Association of German Journalists,who say the threat of hefty fines is prompting internet firms to err on the side of caution and block more content than is necessary.They point to several high-profile cases,including when a satirical magazine's Twitter account was blocked after it parodied anti-Muslim comments Facebook,which says it has 1,200 people in Germany working on reviewing posts out of 14,000 globally responsible for moderating content and account security,said it was not pursuing a strategy to delete more than necessary"."People think deleting illegal content is easy but it's not,"said Richard Allan,Facebooks vice president for EMEA public policy."Facebook reviews every NetzDG report carefully and with legal expertise,where appropriate.When our legal experts advise us,we follow their assessment so we can meet our obligations under the law,Twitter declined to comment on how it is implementing the law,while Google's You Tube said it would continue to invest heavily in staff and technology to comply with NetzDG Among other countries considering similar measures,France is looking at rules to block"fake news Britain is seeking to stop online harassment of politicians and Japan is looking to restrict suicidal posts after a suspected serial killer found his victims by trawling TwitterWhy did other governments pay close attention to the German's revision of social media law?A.Because they worried about the future of German social media industryB.Because they were curious about the public's reaction to the lawC.Because they wanted to learn from the experience of germanyD.Because they appreciated German's effort to regulate the social media
Text 4 The revelations we publish about how Facebook's data was used by Cambridge Analytica to subvert the openness of democracy are only the latest examples of a global phenomenon.YouTube can not only profit from disturbing content but in unintended ways rewards its creation.The algorithms that guide viewers to new choices aim always to intensify the experience,and to keep the viewer excited.Recent research found that the nearly 9,000 YouTube videos explaining away American school shootings as the results of conspiracies using actors to play the part of victims had been watched,in total,more than 4bn times.Four billion page views is an awful lot of potential advertising revenue;it is also,in an embarrassingly literal sense,traffic in human misery and exploitation.None of these problems is new,and all of them will grow worse and more pressing in the coming years,as the technology advances.Yet the real difficulty is not the slickness of the technology but the willingness of the audience to be deceived and its desire to have its prejudices gratified.Many of the most destructive videos on YouTube consist of one man roaring into a camera without any visual aids at all.Twitter uses no fancy technology yet lies spread across that network six times as fast as true stories.Although Twitter and YouTube pose undoubted difficulties for democracies,it is Facebook that has borne the brunt of recent criticism,in part because its global ambitions have led it to expand into countries where it is essentially the only gateway to the wider internet,The company's ambitions to become the carrier of all content（and thus able to sell advertising against everything online）have led it inexorably into the position of being the universal publisher.The difficulties of this position cannot be resolved by the facile idea of the"community values"to which Facebook appeals-and,anyway,that only begs the question:"Which community?"Mark Zuckerberg talks about a"global community"but such a thing does not exist and may never do so.Communities have different values and different interests,which sometimes appear existentially opposed.Almost all will define themselves,at least in part,against other communities.The task of reconciling the resulting conflicts is political,cultural and even religious;it is not technological at all.For a private American advertising company to set itself up as the arbiter of all the world's political and cultural conflicts is an entirely vain ambition.Into the vacuum left by Facebook's waffle,nation states are stepping.Many are keen to use surveillance capitalism for direct political ends.They must be resisted.The standards by which the internet is controlled need to be open and subject to the workings of impartial judiciaries.But the task cannot and will not be left to the advertising companies that at present control most of the content-and whose own judgments are themselves almost wholly opaque and arbitrary.The author suggests internet content____A.be supervised by peopleB.be surveilled by social mediaC.be checked by its providersD.be controlled by law
Text 4 Alphabet Inc.'s most successful product-the Google search engine-may now be its most problematic.On Tuesday,the European Commission's top antitrust regulator levied a$2.7-billion fine against Alphabet and Google for the way the search engine handles requests for information about products.Specifically,Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that Google twisted its results to bury links to rival companies'comparison shopping sites while prominently featuring its own service,Google Shopping.Google responded that it's simply trying to give users what they want and denied"favoring ourselves,or any particular site or seller."It has a lot at stake:Google has integrated many different offerings into its search engine,including its mapping and travel services.The principle advanced by Vestager,however,is a good one:Giant online companies shoulcl not be able to take advantage of their dominance in one field to hurt competitors in another.Google's argument is:It integrated Google Shopping,which offers links to products at sites that advertise on Google.into its search engine because that gave users quicker access to the information they were seeking.And in the United States,the key question in antitrust!aw is whether a company's behavior hurts users,not whether it hurts the company's competitors.European regulators focus more on competitors,but they really are two sides of the same coin.If competitors are unfairly closed out,the public can miss out on the very real benefits that vigorous competition provides.At the same time,it's undeniable that the public has welcomed virtual monopolies in search,social media and other services in the Internet era.A large part of the appeal of sites like Facebook and Twitter is that so many people use them.There's a network effect for social media apps in particular-the more people who use the service,the more valuable it becomes to them.Meanwhile,start-ups come out of nowhere to create whole new categories of must-have apps and proclucts online.That means dominant companies have to innovate too,or else they can easily change from today's thing to yesterday's.And often,that innovation involves finding a better way to do something that a competitor is doing.The challenge for regulators is to provide the big companies space to try new things without grossly disrupting the market,closing out other companies and reducing consumer choice,which will ultimately lead to less innovation.A good place to start is by focusing on cases where there is evidence of intentional undermining of competitors-where a dominant company alters the platform it provides not just to feature its own services,but to make it harder to find or use its rivals'.The author argues that regulators should_____A.leave room for dominant companies to innovateB.help small companies enhance competitivenessC.encourage companies to increase product varietyD.prohibit featuring services on company platforms
Text 4 Alphabet Inc.'s most successful product-the Google search engine-may now be its most problematic.On Tuesday,the European Commission's top antitrust regulator levied a$2.7-billion fine against Alphabet and Google for the way the search engine handles requests for information about products.Specifically,Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that Google twisted its results to bury links to rival companies'comparison shopping sites while prominently featuring its own service,Google Shopping.Google responded that it's simply trying to give users what they want and denied"favoring ourselves,or any particular site or seller."It has a lot at stake:Google has integrated many different offerings into its search engine,including its mapping and travel services.The principle advanced by Vestager,however,is a good one:Giant online companies shoulcl not be able to take advantage of their dominance in one field to hurt competitors in another.Google's argument is:It integrated Google Shopping,which offers links to products at sites that advertise on Google.into its search engine because that gave users quicker access to the information they were seeking.And in the United States,the key question in antitrust!aw is whether a company's behavior hurts users,not whether it hurts the company's competitors.European regulators focus more on competitors,but they really are two sides of the same coin.If competitors are unfairly closed out,the public can miss out on the very real benefits that vigorous competition provides.At the same time,it's undeniable that the public has welcomed virtual monopolies in search,social media and other services in the Internet era.A large part of the appeal of sites like Facebook and Twitter is that so many people use them.There's a network effect for social media apps in particular-the more people who use the service,the more valuable it becomes to them.Meanwhile,start-ups come out of nowhere to create whole new categories of must-have apps and proclucts online.That means dominant companies have to innovate too,or else they can easily change from today's thing to yesterday's.And often,that innovation involves finding a better way to do something that a competitor is doing.The challenge for regulators is to provide the big companies space to try new things without grossly disrupting the market,closing out other companies and reducing consumer choice,which will ultimately lead to less innovation.A good place to start is by focusing on cases where there is evidence of intentional undermining of competitors-where a dominant company alters the platform it provides not just to feature its own services,but to make it harder to find or use its rivals'.Which of the following statements about virtual monopolies is true?A.They are increasingly denied by the public.B.They are facing great pressure of innovation.C.They are attempting to cooperate with start-ups.D.They are suffering badly from the network effect.
Text 4 Alphabet Inc.'s most successful product-the Google search engine-may now be its most problematic.On Tuesday,the European Commission's top antitrust regulator levied a$2.7-billion fine against Alphabet and Google for the way the search engine handles requests for information about products.Specifically,Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that Google twisted its results to bury links to rival companies'comparison shopping sites while prominently featuring its own service,Google Shopping.Google responded that it's simply trying to give users what they want and denied"favoring ourselves,or any particular site or seller."It has a lot at stake:Google has integrated many different offerings into its search engine,including its mapping and travel services.The principle advanced by Vestager,however,is a good one:Giant online companies shoulcl not be able to take advantage of their dominance in one field to hurt competitors in another.Google's argument is:It integrated Google Shopping,which offers links to products at sites that advertise on Google.into its search engine because that gave users quicker access to the information they were seeking.And in the United States,the key question in antitrust!aw is whether a company's behavior hurts users,not whether it hurts the company's competitors.European regulators focus more on competitors,but they really are two sides of the same coin.If competitors are unfairly closed out,the public can miss out on the very real benefits that vigorous competition provides.At the same time,it's undeniable that the public has welcomed virtual monopolies in search,social media and other services in the Internet era.A large part of the appeal of sites like Facebook and Twitter is that so many people use them.There's a network effect for social media apps in particular-the more people who use the service,the more valuable it becomes to them.Meanwhile,start-ups come out of nowhere to create whole new categories of must-have apps and proclucts online.That means dominant companies have to innovate too,or else they can easily change from today's thing to yesterday's.And often,that innovation involves finding a better way to do something that a competitor is doing.The challenge for regulators is to provide the big companies space to try new things without grossly disrupting the market,closing out other companies and reducing consumer choice,which will ultimately lead to less innovation.A good place to start is by focusing on cases where there is evidence of intentional undermining of competitors-where a dominant company alters the platform it provides not just to feature its own services,but to make it harder to find or use its rivals'.The European antitrust law is similar to its American counterpart in——A.the goal to defend the benefits of consumersB.the principle of protecting market competitorsC.the criteria to decide whether a company is guiltyD.the way to penatize convicted companies
Text 4 Alphabet Inc.'s most successful product-the Google search engine-may now be its most problematic.On Tuesday,the European Commission's top antitrust regulator levied a$2.7-billion fine against Alphabet and Google for the way the search engine handles requests for information about products.Specifically,Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that Google twisted its results to bury links to rival companies'comparison shopping sites while prominently featuring its own service,Google Shopping.Google responded that it's simply trying to give users what they want and denied"favoring ourselves,or any particular site or seller."It has a lot at stake:Google has integrated many different offerings into its search engine,including its mapping and travel services.The principle advanced by Vestager,however,is a good one:Giant online companies shoulcl not be able to take advantage of their dominance in one field to hurt competitors in another.Google's argument is:It integrated Google Shopping,which offers links to products at sites that advertise on Google.into its search engine because that gave users quicker access to the information they were seeking.And in the United States,the key question in antitrust!aw is whether a company's behavior hurts users,not whether it hurts the company's competitors.European regulators focus more on competitors,but they really are two sides of the same coin.If competitors are unfairly closed out,the public can miss out on the very real benefits that vigorous competition provides.At the same time,it's undeniable that the public has welcomed virtual monopolies in search,social media and other services in the Internet era.A large part of the appeal of sites like Facebook and Twitter is that so many people use them.There's a network effect for social media apps in particular-the more people who use the service,the more valuable it becomes to them.Meanwhile,start-ups come out of nowhere to create whole new categories of must-have apps and proclucts online.That means dominant companies have to innovate too,or else they can easily change from today's thing to yesterday's.And often,that innovation involves finding a better way to do something that a competitor is doing.The challenge for regulators is to provide the big companies space to try new things without grossly disrupting the market,closing out other companies and reducing consumer choice,which will ultimately lead to less innovation.A good place to start is by focusing on cases where there is evidence of intentional undermining of competitors-where a dominant company alters the platform it provides not just to feature its own services,but to make it harder to find or use its rivals'.According to Paragraph 2,the author views Google's activity with——.A.sympathyB.uncertaintyC.appreciationD.criticism
Text 4 The revelations we publish about how Facebook's data was used by Cambridge Analytica to subvert the openness of democracy are only the latest examples of a global phenomenon.YouTube can not only profit from disturbing content but in unintended ways rewards its creation.The algorithms that guide viewers to new choices aim always to intensify the experience,and to keep the viewer excited.Recent research found that the nearly 9,000 YouTube videos explaining away American school shootings as the results of conspiracies using actors to play the part of victims had been watched,in total,more than 4bn times.Four billion page views is an awful lot of potential advertising revenue;it is also,in an embarrassingly literal sense,traffic in human misery and exploitation.None of these problems is new,and all of them will grow worse and more pressing in the coming years,as the technology advances.Yet the real difficulty is not the slickness of the technology but the willingness of the audience to be deceived and its desire to have its prejudices gratified.Many of the most destructive videos on YouTube consist of one man roaring into a camera without any visual aids at all.Twitter uses no fancy technology yet lies spread across that network six times as fast as true stories.Although Twitter and YouTube pose undoubted difficulties for democracies,it is Facebook that has borne the brunt of recent criticism,in part because its global ambitions have led it to expand into countries where it is essentially the only gateway to the wider internet,The company's ambitions to become the carrier of all content（and thus able to sell advertising against everything online）have led it inexorably into the position of being the universal publisher.The difficulties of this position cannot be resolved by the facile idea of the"community values"to which Facebook appeals-and,anyway,that only begs the question:"Which community?"Mark Zuckerberg talks about a"global community"but such a thing does not exist and may never do so.Communities have different values and different interests,which sometimes appear existentially opposed.Almost all will define themselves,at least in part,against other communities.The task of reconciling the resulting conflicts is political,cultural and even religious;it is not technological at all.For a private American advertising company to set itself up as the arbiter of all the world's political and cultural conflicts is an entirely vain ambition.Into the vacuum left by Facebook's waffle,nation states are stepping.Many are keen to use surveillance capitalism for direct political ends.They must be resisted.The standards by which the internet is controlled need to be open and subject to the workings of impartial judiciaries.But the task cannot and will not be left to the advertising companies that at present control most of the content-and whose own judgments are themselves almost wholly opaque and arbitrary.The first paragraph mainly presents to us____.A.the secret of online video marketingB.public safety problems in the digital eraC.the destructive power of social mediaD.the social impact of conspiracy theories
Text 4 Alphabet Inc.'s most successful product-the Google search engine-may now be its most problematic.On Tuesday,the European Commission's top antitrust regulator levied a$2.7-billion fine against Alphabet and Google for the way the search engine handles requests for information about products.Specifically,Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that Google twisted its results to bury links to rival companies'comparison shopping sites while prominently featuring its own service,Google Shopping.Google responded that it's simply trying to give users what they want and denied"favoring ourselves,or any particular site or seller."It has a lot at stake:Google has integrated many different offerings into its search engine,including its mapping and travel services.The principle advanced by Vestager,however,is a good one:Giant online companies shoulcl not be able to take advantage of their dominance in one field to hurt competitors in another.Google's argument is:It integrated Google Shopping,which offers links to products at sites that advertise on Google.into its search engine because that gave users quicker access to the information they were seeking.And in the United States,the key question in antitrust!aw is whether a company's behavior hurts users,not whether it hurts the company's competitors.European regulators focus more on competitors,but they really are two sides of the same coin.If competitors are unfairly closed out,the public can miss out on the very real benefits that vigorous competition provides.At the same time,it's undeniable that the public has welcomed virtual monopolies in search,social media and other services in the Internet era.A large part of the appeal of sites like Facebook and Twitter is that so many people use them.There's a network effect for social media apps in particular-the more people who use the service,the more valuable it becomes to them.Meanwhile,start-ups come out of nowhere to create whole new categories of must-have apps and proclucts online.That means dominant companies have to innovate too,or else they can easily change from today's thing to yesterday's.And often,that innovation involves finding a better way to do something that a competitor is doing.The challenge for regulators is to provide the big companies space to try new things without grossly disrupting the market,closing out other companies and reducing consumer choice,which will ultimately lead to less innovation.A good place to start is by focusing on cases where there is evidence of intentional undermining of competitors-where a dominant company alters the platform it provides not just to feature its own services,but to make it harder to find or use its rivals'.The European Commission fined Google for_____A.providing false informationB.integrating multiple offeringsC.manipulating search resultsD.defaming rival companies
资料：For promotions to remain effective, RT company has to analyze the impact of different campaigns. Word of mouth promotions can be more difficult to measure than some traditional methods of promotion. Although healthy sales are an important measure, RT uses other measures to evaluate the effectiveness of its activities. For example:Setting targets for sales returns from the smaller promotional activities.Evaluating the amount of editorial coverage its activities receive in the media.Measuring the number of blogs related to RT's products and the frequency of comment on these blogs.Evaluating the online influence of RT activities in the social media. For example, on Twitter there are around 260000 followers of RT activities.On Facebook,more than 21000000 consumers like RT.Conducting an annual brand health-check with consumers to ensure that they like the brand.Measuring the outcomes of RT promotions is not just about return on investment. These figures do not create the whole picture. This is because it can be difficult to value word of mouth promotions on paper. Sales returns do not take not account other factors such as longer-term brand loyalty.What is the passage about?A.the sales report of RT campaigns.B.the sales report of RT company.C.how Facebook and Twitter have influenced the market.D.how to evaluate promotional activities.
If a backup is expired， which of the following is true？（） A、 It can never be used for a restore/recover operation.B、 Oracle will remove the backup set pieces from the flash recovery area.C、 The backup has been used at least once to restore and recover the database.D、 The backup is no longer valid because of a resetlogs operation.E、 The physical backup set pieces are missing from the media.
Which of the following actions will allow you to convert from Windows Server 2012 R2 Standard to Windows Server Datacenter， using the least administrative effort？（）A、You should run Setup from the installation media.B、You should run the Install-WindowsFeature cmdlet from the Windows PowerShell.C、You should run the dism /online /add-package command from an elevated command prompt.D、You should run the dism /online /enable-feature command from an elevated command Prompt.E、You should run the dism /online /set-edition command from an elevated command prompt.
单选题If a backup is expired， which of the following is true？（）A It can never be used for a restore/recover operation.B Oracle will remove the backup set pieces from the flash recovery area.C The backup has been used at least once to restore and recover the database.D The backup is no longer valid because of a resetlogs operation.E The physical backup set pieces are missing from the media.
单选题Ahab is too much of a self-reliant individual to be a good human being. For him the only law is _____.Ahis own willBthe natural lawCthe BibleDthe Constitution