Part A: Reading Comprehension
Text 3
The power and ambition of the giants of the digital economy is astonishing—Amazon has just announced the purchase of the upmarket grocery chain Whole Foods for $13.5bn, but two years ago Facebook paid even more than that to acquire the WhatsApp messaging service, which doesn’t have any physical product at all. What WhatsApp offered Facebook was an intricate and finely detailed web of its users’ friendships and social lives.
Facebook promised the European commission then that it would not link phone numbers to Facebook identities, but it broke the promise almost as soon as the deal went through. Even without knowing what was in the messages, the knowledge of who sent them and to whom was enormously revealing and still could be. What political journalist, what party whip, would not want to know the makeup of the WhatsApp groups in which Theresa May’s enemies are currently plotting? It may be that the value of Whole Foods to Amazon is not so much the 460 shops it owns, but the records of which customers have purchased what.
Competition law appears to be the only way to address these imbalances of power. But it is clumsy. For one thing, it is very slow compared to the pace of change within the digital economy. By the time a problem has been addressed and remedied it may have vanished in the marketplace, to be replaced by new abuses of power. But there is a deeper conceptual problem, too. Competition law as presently interpreted deals with financial disadvantage to consumers and this is not obvious when the users of these services don’t pay for them. The users of their services are not their customers. That would be the people who buy advertising from them—and Facebook and Google, the two virtual giants, dominate digital advertising to the disadvantage of all other media and entertainment companies.
The product they’re selling is data, and we, the users, convert our lives to data for the benefit of the digital giants. Just as some ants farm the bugs called aphids for the honeydew they produce when they feed, so Google farms us for the data that our digital lives yield. Ants keep predatory insects away from where their aphids feed; Gmail keeps the spammers out of our inboxes. It doesn’t feel like a human or democratic relationship, even if both sides benefit.
31. According to Paragraph 1, Facebook acquired WhatsApp for its
32. Linking phone numbers to Facebook identities may
33. According to the author, competition law
34. Competition law as presently interpreted can hardly protect Facebook users because
35. The ants analogy is used to illustrate
答案解析 (Answers & Explanations)
31. [B] user information.
解析：第一段最后一句明确指出：“WhatsApp 提供给 Facebook 的是其用户友谊和社交生活的错综复杂且精细详细的网络（an intricate and finely detailed web of its users’ friendships and social lives）”。这种网络本质上就是用户信息。A项“数字产品”错误，文中说 WhatsApp 没有任何实体产品；C项“实体资产”错误；D项“优质服务”不是收购的核心目的。
32. [C] pose a risk to Facebook users.
解析：第二段指出，尽管不知道具体信息内容，但“谁发给谁”这一知识具有极大的揭示性（enormously revealing）。作者还举了政治家想要知道对手在群组里谋划什么的例子。这说明将电话号码与身份关联会泄露个人隐私和社交圈，从而给用户带来风险，选C。
33. [D] cannot keep pace with the changing market.
解析：第三段第三句提到：“首先，与数字经济的变化速度相比，它非常缓慢（it is very slow compared to the pace of change...）”。接着说，等问题解决时，它可能已经在市场上消失了。这完美对应选项D“无法跟上不断变化的市场步伐”。
34. [A] they are not defined as customers.
解析：第三段指出，目前的竞争法处理的是对消费者的经济损失，但这在用户不付费的情况下并不明显。接着作者直白地说：“这些服务的使用者并不是他们的顾客（The users of their services are not their customers）”。真正的顾客是买广告的人。因此，法律难以保护用户是因为他们不被定义为法律意义上的“顾客”，选A。
35. [D] the relationship between digital giants and their users.
解析：最后一段用蚂蚁养殖蚜虫获取蜜露来类比谷歌“养殖”我们获取数据。蚂蚁保护蚜虫不受掠食者侵害，正如 Gmail 拦截垃圾邮件。这个生动的类比是为了说明数字巨头与用户之间这种“非人类、非民主”但又互惠的数据获取关系，选D。
全文翻译
数字经济巨头的权力和雄心令人惊叹——亚马逊刚刚宣布以135亿美元收购高端食品连锁店Whole Foods，而两年前Facebook支付了甚至更多的钱来收购WhatsApp消息服务，后者根本没有任何实体产品。WhatsApp提供给Facebook的是其用户友谊和社交生活的精细复杂的网络。
Facebook当时向欧盟委员会承诺不会将电话号码与Facebook身份关联，但几乎在交易完成后就违背了这一承诺。即使不知道消息的内容，知道谁发给谁也极具揭示性，并且现在仍然如此。哪个政治记者、哪个党鞭不想知道Theresa May的敌人正在其中密谋的WhatsApp群组的组成？Whole Foods对亚马逊的价值可能不在于其拥有的460家商店，而在于哪些顾客购买了什么的记录。
竞争法似乎是解决这些权力失衡的唯一途径。但它很笨拙。首先，与数字经济内部的变化速度相比，它非常缓慢。当一个问题得到处理和补救时，它可能已经在市场上消失了，被新的权力滥用所取代。但还有一个更深层的概念性问题。目前解释的竞争法处理的是消费者的财务不利，而当这些服务的用户不为其付费时，这一点并不明显。他们服务的用户不是他们的客户。客户是从他们那里购买广告的人——而Facebook和Google这两大虚拟巨头主导数字广告，损害了所有其他媒体和娱乐公司的利益。
他们卖的产品是数据，而我们用户将我们的生活转化为数据，为数字巨头的利益服务。正如某些蚂蚁饲养被称为蚜虫的虫子以获取它们进食时产生的蜜露一样，Google为了我们数字生活产生的数据而饲养我们。蚂蚁保护捕食性昆虫远离它们蚜虫进食的地方；Gmail将垃圾邮件发送者挡在我们的收件箱之外。即使双方都受益，这并不感觉像一种人类或民主的关系。
核心长难句精解 (High-Light)
1. 比较结构与定语从句的嵌套：
"Amazon has just announced the purchase of... but two years ago Facebook paid even more than that to acquire the WhatsApp messaging service, which doesn’t have any physical product at all."
【解析】主句是 `Facebook paid... to acquire...`。`even more than that` 进行了金钱上的对比（收购 WhatsApp 比 Whole Foods 更贵）。`which` 引导非限制性定语从句修饰 WhatsApp，强调其作为纯数字服务的特殊性。
"Amazon has just announced the purchase of... but two years ago Facebook paid even more than that to acquire the WhatsApp messaging service, which doesn’t have any physical product at all."
【解析】主句是 `Facebook paid... to acquire...`。`even more than that` 进行了金钱上的对比（收购 WhatsApp 比 Whole Foods 更贵）。`which` 引导非限制性定语从句修饰 WhatsApp，强调其作为纯数字服务的特殊性。
2. 与其说是...不如说是... (not so much... but...)：
"It may be that the value of Whole Foods to Amazon is not so much the 460 shops it owns, but the records of which customers have purchased what."
【解析】固定搭配 `not so much A but B` 意为“与其说是 A 不如说是 B”。这句话揭示了亚马逊收购超市的真正意图——为了获得海量的线下消费数据。`which customers have purchased what` 是宾语从句作 records 的后置定语。
"It may be that the value of Whole Foods to Amazon is not so much the 460 shops it owns, but the records of which customers have purchased what."
【解析】固定搭配 `not so much A but B` 意为“与其说是 A 不如说是 B”。这句话揭示了亚马逊收购超市的真正意图——为了获得海量的线下消费数据。`which customers have purchased what` 是宾语从句作 records 的后置定语。
3. 正如...也... (Just as... so...) 结构类比：
"Just as some ants farm the bugs called aphids for the honeydew they produce when they feed, so Google farms us for the data that our digital lives yield."
【解析】这是一个经典的类比结构。`Just as` 引导状语从句，`so` 引导主句。作者将复杂的互联网商业模式简化为自然界的共生/养殖关系，既通俗易懂又极具讽刺意味。
"Just as some ants farm the bugs called aphids for the honeydew they produce when they feed, so Google farms us for the data that our digital lives yield."
【解析】这是一个经典的类比结构。`Just as` 引导状语从句，`so` 引导主句。作者将复杂的互联网商业模式简化为自然界的共生/养殖关系，既通俗易懂又极具讽刺意味。