[单选题]
“Please don't leave us.” From the dozens of e-mails in people's inboxes， begging them to give their consent to be sent further messages， you could deduce that the senders of newsletters and the like are hardest hit by the European Union's tough new privacy law， the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).But the main loser may well be advertising technology， or ad tech.In fact， the GDPR would probably not exist at all were it not for this collection of companies.
Ad tech emerged because advertising is the internet's default business model.Since targeted ads tend to be more efficient and targeting requires personal data (sites previously visited， searches in online stores and the like)， these data became the fuel of a new industry to automate online advertising.Yet the “ad- tech bubble” has been deflating for some time.The industry thought that consumers would welcome “relevant” ads， but as these got more intrusive， people reacted by installing ad-blockers.
The GDPR will speed up the process by assigning a value to personal data.Under a realistic reading of the GDPR， most ad-tech firms will need consent from individuals to process their data.This will be hard， since most have no direct relationship with consumers.And even if they do， people are unlikely to approve being tracked across the web; only 3% would opt in， according to Johnny Ryan of PageFair， an anti-adblock tech firm.
Reactions to GDPR have varied.Some ad-tech companies have pulled out of Europe.Others think they can get away with claiming “legitimate interest”， which is another legal basis for processing personal data allowed by the GDPR - an optimistic interpretation， and one that is likely to become obsolete with the ePrivacy directive， another privacy law the EU is working on.
Another tack is to try and use the GDPR to improve companies' position in the market.Threatened by the increasing dominance of Google in the online advertising market， publishers hope that the GDPR will end up helping them.The rise of ad tech meant that advertisers no longer targeted websites and apps， but people.If the law makes individual targeting more difficult， publishers will regain some control of customer relationships， says Jason Kint of Digital Content Next， a publisher group.
Early signs suggest that the ad-tech industry may indeed be turning away from individually targeting people.A group of media companies has launched T rust X， a non-profit ad exchange which does not allow people's data to be shared by lots of other firms.If the GDPR strengthens this trend， consumers will breathe easier online - and not just because their inboxes will be emptier.
The author believes that claiming “legitimate interest” ______.
Aresults from a misreading of the GDPR
Bis a precondition for processing personal data
Cmay soon be made infeasible by the EU
Dmay benefit ad-tech companies in the long run
参考答案：C
[单选题]
What news do people see? What do they believe to be true about the world around them? What do they do with that information as citizens? Facebook， Google， and other giant technology companies have significant control over the answers to those questions.It's no exaggeration to say that their decisions shape how billions see the world and， in the long run， will affect the health of governing institutions around the world.
That's a hefty responsibility， but one that many tech companies say they want to uphold.For example， in an open letter， Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote that the company's next focus would be “developing the social infrastructure for community - for supporting us， for keeping us safe， for informing us， for civic engagement， and for inclusion of all.”
The trouble is not a lack of good intentions on Zuckerberg's part， but the system he is working within， the Stanford professor Rob Reich argued at the Aspen Ideas Festival.
Reich said that Zuckerberg's effort to position Facebook as committed to a civic purpose is “in deep and obvious tension with the for-profit business model of a technology company.” The company's shareholders are bound to be focused on increasing revenue， which in Facebook's case comes from user engagement.And， as Reich put it， “it's not the case that responsible civic engagement will always coincide with maximizing engagement on the platform." For example， Facebook's news feed may elicit more user engagement when the content provokes some sort of emotional response， as is the case with conspiracy theories.Tamping down on them may lead to less user engagement， and Facebook will find that its commitment to civic engagement is at odds with its need to increase profits.
Reich believes that some sort of oversight is necessary to ensure that big tech companies make decisions that are in the public's interest， even when it's at odds with increasing revenue.Relying on CEOs and boards of directors to choose to do good doesn't cut it， he said： “we need to think structurally about how to create a system of checks and balances or an incentive arrangement so that whether you get a good person or a bad person or a good board or a bad board， it's just much more difficult for any particular company or any particular sector to do a whole bunch of things that threaten nothing less than the integrity of our democratic institutions.”
Reich said that one model for corporations might be creating something like ethics committees that hospitals have.When hospitals run into complicated medical questions' they can refer the question to the ethics committee whose members represent a variety of interests.That group dives deeply into the question and comes up with a course of action that takes into account various values they prize.It's a complicated， thoughtful process - “not an algorithm where you spit out the correct moral answer at the end of the day，” Reich said.
The expression “doesn't cut it” (Line 3， Para.5) is closest in meaning to______.
Adoesn't reduce the effectiveness of something
Bisn't good enough to do something
Cis a necessary step
Dis an economical option
参考答案：B
[单选题]
The technology sector has driven global markets this year.Now， it seems to be driving regulatory- decisions， too.
Consider the US Federal Communication Commission's decision last week to roll back “net neutrality” rules， the principles that specify that internet service providers must treat all online traffic the same.While FCC chair Ajit Pai， a former Verizon lawyer， says this is about moving back towards “light touch” regulation， it is also about changing the balance of power between tech and telecoms.It does this by allowing the largest internet service providers such as AT&T， Verizon， Sprint and T-Mobile to charge the cash-rich platform companies fees to move their traffic to the front of the digital queue.
This speaks to the huge power of the Fangs - Facebook， Amazon， Netflix and Google - which now dominate not just the digital business， but the entire economy.It is a power that has grown so quickly， and changed so much， that it is forcing a fundamental rethink of everything from antitrust policy to the rules that have governed the internet for more than 20 years.
Big tech platform companies， which have been the largest corporate beneficiaries of net neutrality， have until now worked both the social and economic arguments to their own advantage.They and many other supporters of net neutrality have argued that more power for the ISPs would suppress innovation on the internet and unfairly penalise small businesses.Yet a number of critics would argue that the Fangs themselves are a bigger risk to innovation than the telecoms companies， in large part because of the network effects that make them natural monopolies.The currency of the digital age is data， and its value grows exponentially.This allows the biggest players to become ever more dominant and able to suppress competition in innumerable ways.
All this serves as a reminder that many of the monopoly battles being waged these days are not confrontations between David and Goliath， but rather Goliath and Goliath.It is hard to argue that a vertical merger between content and pipe owners like Time Warner and AT&T is a good thing for competition， or for the little guy， even if you buy the idea that the goal of antitrust policy should be “consumer welfare”.But it seems inconsistent to go after AT&T without also going after the Fangs.
What is lost in all of this debate may well be the American consumer.Even if the US had an administration that cared about enforcing antitrust， policies based on outdated models that do not address the problems of the digital age will not even out the playing field.
Meanwhile， a rollback of net neutrality will not really hurt the Fangs -they can easily pay whatever fees the ISPs decide to charge.But it could create a premium and economy class internet for consumers.What we need is equal and consistent application of competition rules.That will probably mean coming up with new rules.
According to the last two paragraphs， the rollback of net neutrality is likely to______.
Awiden the digital gap between rich and poor
Bdrive the updating of Internet regulations
Cpose financial challenges for Fangs
Dgive consumers cheaper access to the internet
参考答案：A
[单选题]
Congressional Republicans and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau(CFPB) are clashing over a question that has implications far beyond the world of finance： How far can companies go to protect themselves from customer lawsuits? Neither side has got the answer quite right.
If you've ever signed up for a credit card， you've most likely skipped through the boilerplate contracts at the center of the controversy.They're mostly concerned with commercial terms such as interest rates and fees.These standardized conditions facilitate trade and save everyone time and money.
Increasingly， though， the agreements include something else： a clause requiring consumers to resolve disputes in private arbitration， not in court.In some markets， the practice has become so universal that customers no longer have any choice.This is troubling， because arbitrations have no juries， no rules of evidence and no straightforward method of appeal to the courts.They've also been known to go badly wrong.
Enter the CFPB， which issued a rule earlier this month saying that financial companies can't ask consumers to sign contracts waiving their right to participate in class actions.On the face of it， this makes sense， given that such actions - which bundle numerous complaints in a single lawsuit - can be the only way for plaintiffs with limited resources to gain compensation.It would also bring the U.S.more in line with the U.K.and other European countries， where mandatory arbitration clauses are typically considered invalid.
Problem is， the CFPB's solution assumes that U.S.class-action law works well， which it doesn't.Unlike most other developed countries， the U.S.lets courts award large punitive damages， doesn't require unsuccessful plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs， and allows classes to include customers who haven't actively agreed to participate - all of which leads to too much expensive litigation.Lawyers can end up gaining more than aggrieved customers， incurring costs that can get passed on to consumers as higher prices.
What to do? Simply repealing the CFPB rule and leaving the current system in place， as Republican legislators propose， wouldn't be an improvement.The right answer starts with tort reform.Congress should make it harder to form classes on an opt-out basis， put limits on damages and lawyers' fees， and let courts tell the losing side to pay the opponent's legal costs.
Once that's done， the CFPB's rule would work well， because there'd be no good reason to force consumers away from the courts.Firms and their customers could choose the appropriate venue - be it the courts， arbitration or mediation - case by case.But the CFPB can't get to this outcome by itself.The larger problem is one that only Congress can solve.
It can be inferred from Paragraph 4 that the CFPB aims to______.
Aprotect consumers， right to participate in class actions
Bgrant consumers the right to go to arbitration
Crequire arbitration clauses to be included in contracts
Dcompel financial companies to clarify compensation terms
参考答案：A
[单选题]
Television-the most pervasive and persuasive of modern technologies,marked by rapid hange and growth-is moving into a new era, an era of extraordinary sophistication and versatility,which promises to reshape our lives and our world.It is an electronic revolution of sorts,made possible by the marriage of television and computer technologies.
The word”television”，derived from its Greek(tele:distant)and Latin(vision:sight)roots, can literally be interpreted sight from a distance.Very simply put,it works in this way:through a sophisticated system of electronics,television provides the capability of converting an image (focused on a special photo-conductive plate within a camera)into electronic impulses,which can be sent through a wire or cable.These impulses,when fed into a receiver(television set)can then be electronically reconstituted into that same image.
Television is more than just an electronics system,however.It is a means of expression,as well as a vehicle for communication,and as such becomes a powerful tool for reaching other human beings.
The field of television can be divided into two categories determined by its means o transmission.First, there is broadcast television, which reaches the masses through broad based airwave transmission of television signals.Second, there is non-broadcast television, which provides for the needs of individuals or specific interest groups through controlled transmission technique.
Traditionally, television has been a medium of the masses.We are most familiar with broadcast television because it has been with us for many years.During those years, it has been controlled, for the most part, by the broadcast networks, ABC, NBC, and CBS, who have been the major purveyors of news, information, and entertainment.These giants of broadcasting have actually shaped not only television but our perception of it as well.We have come to look upon the picture tube as a source of entertainment,placing our role in this dynamic medium as the passive viewer.
A television revolution______.
Areaches the masses while the non-broadcast television is for specific groups.
Bis coming with the development of technologies.
Cit influences our attitudes.
Dit can realize the mutual conversion between electronic impulses and image
Eit is a sophisticated system of electronics
Fit promotes communication between people
Gtelevision is very popular.
参考答案：B
☛☛☛试题来源于华课网校焚题库，进入2022年研究生考试练习题库>>>更多考研试题(每日一练、模拟试卷、历年真题、易错题)等你来做!
扫码进入考研交流群
☟☟☟
责编：hym
相关文章
报考指南
- 考研真题
- 模拟试题
- 考研备考