2. 考研
  3. You’ve probably experienced it yourself. Maybe it’s the way you feel while scrolling through your Twitter feed—anxious, twitchy,

You’ve probably experienced it yourself. Maybe it’s the way you feel while scrolling through your Twitter feed—anxious, twitchy,

admin2022-04-20  97
问题     You’ve probably experienced it yourself. Maybe it’s the way you feel while scrolling through your Twitter feed—anxious, twitchy, a little world weary—or maybe it was this month’s Facebook privacy scandal, which reminded you that you’ve entrusted the most intimate parts of your digital life to a profit maximizing surveillance machine.
    Our growing discomfort with our largest social platforms is reflected in polls. One recently conducted by Axios and Survey Monkey found that all three of the major social media companies—Facebook, Twitter and Google—are significantly less popular with Americans than they were five months ago. But it would be a mistake to throw up our hands and assume that it has to be this way. The original dream of social media—producing healthy discussions, unlocking new forms of creativity, connecting people to others with similar interests— shouldn’t be discarded because of the failures of the current market leaders.
    The primary problem with today’s social networks is that they’re already too big, and are trapped inside a market-based system that forces them to keep growing. In their book Neva Power, which comes out next week, Jeremy Heimans and Henry Timms write about the struggle between centralized, top down institutions, which represent "old power," and decentralized, bottom-up movements, which represent "new power. "
    Facebook, they write, is an example of a new power institution that serves old power interests. It harvests the creative output of billions of people and turns it into a giant, centralized enterprise, with most users sharing none of the economic value they create and getting no say in the platform’s governance. Instead, the authors ask, what if a social network was truly run by its users? "If you’re contributing economic value to something of this much social consequence, you should share in the value you’re creating," Heimans told me.
    Nathan Schneider, a professor of media studies at the University of Colorado, had a similar idea in 2016, when he proposed that Twitter users band together to buy the platform from its shareholders and convert it into a user-run collective. People who made valuable contributions to the network, such as employees and power users, would receive bigger stakes and more voting power. And users would have a seat at the table for major decisions about the platform’s operations.
    In a blog post last year, venture capitalist Hunter Walk proposed an interesting idea: a legally mandated "start over" button that, when pressed, would allow users of social networks to delete all their data, clear out their feeds and friend lists, and begin with a fresh account. Such approaches would undoubtedly be bad for most social networks’ business models. But it could create new and healthy norms around privacy and data hygiene.
The scandal of Facebook suggests that________.
选项 A、people are more susceptible to online information
B、negative mood may be associated with it
C、the awareness of privacy protection should be raised among people
D、pursuing profits has always been the core value of Facebook
答案C
解析 本题是细节题。根据题干关键词The Seandal of Facebook定位至首段末句。该句提到，“或者，也许是这个月脸书上的隐私丑闻提醒你意识到，你把自己数字生活中最隐私的部分交给了一个追求利益最大化的监视器”。通过对which后面句子的分析，可知，你已把自己数字生活中最隐秘的部分交给了追求利益最大化的监视器，这一点是人们认识到的脸书丑陋的一面。通过前后文章思路脉络可以得出，人们并没有很好地保护自己的个人隐私。故答案选C。文章首句提到，当你在浏览每日推特推送内容的时候，你可能会感觉到焦虑、着急，并且有点厌世。这是人们看网络信息时所表现出来的一种状态，但前后并不存在因果逻辑关系，也无more susceptible(易受影响)类似的同义表述，故排除A项；B项将丑闻与负面情绪强行建立逻辑关系，而原文中对于负面情绪和丑闻之间是用or连接的并列关系，不存在因果逻辑，故排除；原文对于利益的描述是profitmaximizing，没有体现core value的类似表达，故排除D项。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/0Ui4777K
0

考研英语二

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)