2. 职称英语
  3. Facebook, Google and Twitter were supposed to improve politics. Something ha

Facebook, Google and Twitter were supposed to improve politics. Something ha

游客2023-12-28  23
问题     Facebook, Google and Twitter were supposed to improve politics. Something has gone very wrong.
    In 1962 a British political scientist, Bernard Crick, published "In Defence of Politics". He argued that the art of political horse-trading, far from being shabby, lets people of different beliefs live together in a peaceful, thriving society.
    In a liberal democracy, nobody gets exactly what he wants, but everyone broadly has the freedom to lead the life he chooses. However, without decent information, civility and conciliation, societies resolve their differences by resorting to coercion.
    How Crick would have been dismayed by the falsehood and partisanship on display in this week’s Senate committee hearings in Washington. Not long ago social media held out the promise of a more enlightened politics, as accurate information and effortless communication helped good people drive out corruption, bigotry and lies. Yet Facebook acknowledged that before and after last year’s American election, 146 million users may have seen Russian misinformation on its platform. Google admitted to 1,108 Russian-linked videos and Twitter to 36, 746 accounts. Far from bringing enlightenment, social media have been spreading poison.
    Russia’s trouble-making is only the start. From South Africa to Spain, politics is getting uglier. Part of the reason is that, by spreading untruth and outrage, corroding voters’ judgment and aggravating partisanship, social media erode the conditions for the horse-trading that Crick thought fosters liberty.
    The use of social media does not cause division so much as amplify it. The financial crisis stoked popular anger at a wealthy elite that had left everyone else behind. The culture wars have split voters by identity rather than class.
    Nor are social media alone in their power to polarize—just look at cable TV and talk radio. But, whereas Fox News is familiar, social media platforms are new and still poorly understood. And, because of how they work, they wield extraordinary influence. They make their money by putting photos, personal posts, news stories and ads in front of you.
    Because they can measure how you react, they know just how to get under your skin.
    They collect data about you in order to have algorithms to determine what will catch your eye, in an "attention economy" that keeps users scrolling, clicking and sharing again and again and again. Anyone setting out to shape opinion can produce dozens of ads, analyze them and see which is hardest to resist. The result is compelling: one study found that users in rich countries touch their phones 2,600 times a day.
    It would be wonderful if such a system helped wisdom and truth rise to the surface. But, whatever Keats said, truth is not beauty so much as it is hard work—especially when you disagree with it.
    Everyone who has scrolled through Facebook knows how, instead of imparting wisdom, the system dishes out compulsive stuff that tends to reinforce people’s biases. This aggravates the politics of contempt that took hold, in the United States at least, in the 1990s.
选项
答案     脸书、谷歌和推特本应改善运作严重失衡的美国政治。
    1962年，英国政治学家伯纳德.克里克(Bernard. crick)出版了《捍卫政治》(In Defence of Politics)一书。他认为，政治上的讨价还价远非卑劣，而是使得有着不同信仰的人能够共同生活在和平繁荣的社会的艺术。
    在自由民主的国家中，没有人能随心所欲，但每个人都有选择自己生活的权利，但是，如果社会充斥着虚假信息、人们缺乏谦恭、不会退让，最终武力就会被利用于解决分歧。
    如果克里克参加了本周华盛顿参议院委员会举行的听证会，他一定会因会上的不实之词与党派之争而感到沮丧。不久前，人们还希望社交媒体能够营造更为开明的政治氛围。用户能够在社交平台上获得准确的信息、沟通顺畅，正直之人能够利用它去腐败、去偏见和去谎言。然而，脸书称，在去年美国大选前后，1.46亿用户可能在其平台上看到了俄罗斯黑客散布的错误信息。谷歌承认其平台上有1,108个与俄罗斯宣传活动相关的视频，而推特上有36，746个相关账户。社交媒体非但没有促进民主政治的发展，反而在传播分裂社会的信息。
    俄罗斯利用社交媒体传播虚假信息只是冰山一角。从南非到西班牙，政治权谋变得越来越诡秘阴暗。部分原因在于，通过散布谎言、激发民众愤怒、误导选民、加剧党派之争，社交媒体侵蚀了 (克里克认为)促进自由的政治磋商的社会根基。
    社交媒体的运用与其说造成了分歧，不如说放大了分歧。金融危机激起了民众对不可企及的富人精英阶层的不满，而文化战争则使得选民因身份而非阶级分裂。社交媒体并不是唯一起到分化作用的力量，有线电视和电台访谈节目亦起到作用。然而，福克斯新闻(Fox News)为人熟知，但社交媒体平台仍是新生事物，人们对它的了解很是匮乏。而且，它的运作方式使其拥有非凡的影响力。社交媒体通过向用户推送照片、个人动态、新闻故事和广告来盈利。
    因为它们可以分析用户反应，所以就能抓住其痛点。社交媒体通过收集用户数据，利用算法确定能够吸引特定用户的内容。这就是所谓的“注意力经济”(attention economy)——驱使用户不停地浏览、点击和分享信息。任何想要引导舆论的人，可以通过制作几十个广告，分析它们，然后判断哪一个最能吸引用户眼球。结果令人信服：一项研究发现，富裕国家的用户每天点击手机的次数达到了2,600次。
    如果社交媒体能够促进知识和真相的传播，那将是一件美妙的事情，但是，无论济慈说过什么，与其说真相是美，不如说它来之不易——尤其是当人们并不相信真相的时候。每一个使用过脸书的人都知道，它并没有传播智慧，而是散布令人着迷且加深偏见的内容，这使得藐视政治的风气盛行，至少20世纪90年代的美国是这样。
解析     1.第1段第二句something指代第一句的politics，在翻译时可整合前两句内容，译为“脸书、谷歌和推特本应改善运作严重失衡的美国政治”。
    2.第4段第三句若将Russian misinformation直译为“俄罗斯的错误信息”显得生硬，在翻译时可对原文意思进行解释，译为“俄罗斯黑客散布的错误信息”。
    3.第4段poison为多义词，有“毒药”“有害的思想”等多个义项。结合本文语境，该段提及社交媒体平台上充斥着虚假信息。因此，此处应取第2个义项，将spreading poison具化为“传播分裂社会的信息”更为合适。
    4.第11段第二句take hold为固定搭配，意思是to begin to have complete control over somebody／something“开始完全控制某人／某物”。结合本文语境，此处指的是社会充斥着不良的政治风气，故可译作“盛行”。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3311823.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)