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  16
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.
According to Paragraph 3, Google was charged with
选项 A、failing to cater for advertising campaigns.
B、referring users to other giant browsers.
C、being beaten down by Microsoft’s campaign.
D、charging advertisers steep rates for click.
答案A
解析 第三段第二句讲述了Google面临的两项指控，分别是“在搜索结果中突出自己的服务”，以及“在某些搜索页面上直接呈现答案”，两者都损害了广告商的利益。A项“未能迎合广告宣传”是对上述内容的概括，故为答案。B项拼凑了文中的referring to和browser，引导用户进入其他网站正是广告商所希望的。原文提到Google的做法与微软的行为不同。但这是对Google的肯定。而非Google受到的指控。C项错误。D项答非所问，第三段末句的确提到Google向广告商收费高，但这并不是Google受指控的原因。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/GQmZ777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)