2. 考研
  3. Although no company is mentioned by name, it is very clear which American internet giant the European Parliament has in mind in

Although no company is mentioned by name, it is very clear which American internet giant the European Parliament has in mind in

admin2022-07-06  44
问题     Although no company is mentioned by name, it is very clear which American internet giant the European Parliament has in mind in a resolution that has been doing the rounds in the run-up to a vote this month. One draft calls for "unbundling search engines from other commercial services" to ensure a level playing field for European companies and consumers.  This is the latest and most dramatic outbreak of "Google panic" in Europe.
    The parliament touches on a question that has been raised by politicians from Washington to Seoul and brings together all sorts of issues from privacy to industrial policy. How worrying is the dominance of the internet by Google and a handful of other firms?
    Google is clearly dominant, then; but whether it abuses that dominance is another matter. It stands accused of favouring its own services in search results, making it hard for advertisers to manage campaigns across several online platforms, and presenting answers on some search pages directly rather than referring users to other websites. But its behaviour is not in the same class as Microsoft’s systematic campaign against the Netscape browser in the late 1990s: there are no e-mails talking about "cutting off" competitors’ "air supply". What’s more, some of the features that hurt Google’s competitors benefit its consumers. Giving people flight details, dictionary definitions or a map right away saves them time. And while advertisers often pay high rates for clicks, users get Google’s service for nothing—rather as plumbers and florists fork out to be listed in Yellow Pages which are given to readers free, and nightclubs charge men steep entry prices but let women in free.
    The European Parliament’s "Google panic" looks a mask for two concerns, one worthier than the other. The disappointing one, which American politicians pointed out, is a desire to protect European companies. Among the loudest voices lobbying against Google are two German media giants. Instead of attacking successful American companies, Europe’s leaders should ask themselves why their continent has not produced a Google or a Facebook. Opening up the EU’s digital services market would do more to create one than protecting local established enterprises.
    The good reason for worrying about the internet giants is privacy. It is right to limit the ability of Google and Facebook to use personal data: their services should, for instance, come with default settings guarding privacy, so companies gathering personal information have to ask consumers to opt in. Europe’s politicians have shown more interest in this than American ones. But to address these concerns, they should regulate companies’ behaviour, not their market power. Some clearer thinking by European politicians would benefit the continent’s citizens.
The example of plumbers and florists is mentioned to show that
选项 A、providing service for free is universally accepted.
B、it is legitimate for Google to hurt its competitors.
C、Google doesn’t abuse its dominance in the internet.
D、businesses ought to pay high price for advertising.
答案C
解析 “管道工”和“花店”的例子前指出Google一方面向广告商收取高额费用，而另一方面对用户是免费的，例子可说明Google这么做是合理的。结合第三段首句提出的“Google有没有滥用主宰权又是另外一回事”，暗示的是Google并没有滥甩其主宰权，这也是本段的论点句，C项所述与此相符。A、D项都是就例子本身细节而作出的主观臆断。B项过度推断，hurt its competitors说法较抽象，原文中的hurt Google’s competitors只是针对Google所提出的两项指控而言的，并且原文并未提及Google的行为是否合法。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/LQmZ777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)