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

[A]

digital products. 

[B]

user information. 

[C]

physical assets. 

[D]

quality service. 

32. Linking phone numbers to Facebook identities may

[A]

worsen political disputes. 

[B]

mess up customer records. 

[C]

pose a risk to Facebook users. 

[D]

mislead the European commission. 

33. According to the author, competition law

[A]

should serve the new market powers. 

[B]

may worsen the economic imbalance. 

[C]

should not provide just one legal solution. 

[D]

cannot keep pace with the changing market. 

34. Competition law as presently interpreted can hardly protect Facebook users because

[A]

they are not defined as customers. 

[B]

they are not financially reliable. 

[C]

the services are generally digital. 

[D]

the services are paid for by advertisers. 

35. The ants analogy is used to illustrate

[A]

a win-win business model between digital giants. 

[B]

a typical competition pattern among digital giants. 

[C]

the benefits provided for digital giants’ customers. 

[D]

the relationship between digital giants and their users. 

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。

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。

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。

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。