谷戰(zhàn)峰

新西蘭遭受恐怖分子襲擊后，一段長(zhǎng)達(dá)17分鐘的屠殺視頻在社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)上瘋狂傳播，盡管 Facebook 和 Google 等公司在接到警示后迅速做出了反應(yīng)，但還是有成千上萬(wàn)的人看到了。社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)對(duì)數(shù)十億網(wǎng)民發(fā)布的內(nèi)容不加區(qū)分，到底是保障了言論自由，還是忽視了監(jiān)督內(nèi)容的義務(wù)？

體裁議論文 文章詞數(shù) 338 建議用時(shí) 6 min

難詞探意

1. inflame /?n?fle?m/? v. 激起（憤怒、激動(dòng)等情感）;給……火上澆油

2. outsource /?a?ts??s/? v. 外包;（將……）交外辦理

3. censor /?sens?（r）/? n. （書籍、電影等的）審查員;審查官

4. maintain /me?n?te?n/? v. 維持;保持

5. belatedly /b??le?t?dli/? adv. 延誤地;遲來(lái)地

The terrorist who this month murdered 50 worshippers， live?streamed a 17?minute video of the terrorism in New Zealand. Within 24 hours， that video had been uploaded 1.5 million times on Facebook. Facebook blocked 1.2 million of those videos before they could be viewed， and pulled down the rest. Still， thousands of people saw the footage as it spread to other sites.

In spite of the swift response， it remains the question why on earth we tolerate technology that can be used to inflame violence at lightning speed and global scale.

Jacinda Ardern， New Zealands prime minister， has argued that the tech companies should be considered “the publisher not just the postman”. Scott Morrison， Australias prime minister， is even pushing for the issue to be discussed at the next G20 meeting in Osaka in June， saying： “It is unacceptable to treat the Internet as an ungoverned space.”

The balance between free speech and regulation must be the subject of never?ending debate， changing according to social convention and law. But society has， in effect， easily outsourced much of this debate to the tech platforms. We should not want them to become our official censors; nor do they appear capable of assuming such responsibility. But they should be in lasting dialogue with societies around the world about their rules， practices and services.

Mr Kosseff says that Congress had two purposes in adopting Section 230. One was to promote free speech and innovation. The other was to ensure the tech companies maintained oversight of their content. “They have entirely failed on that job and did not realise that it was a two?way contract，” Mr Kosseff says. “Their services have been weaponised by bad people. They need to put on their big boy pants and behave responsibly.”

The tech companies appear belatedly to have woken up to the dangers and are trying to respond. But they still have a long way to go. Until they fully deliver on their side of the contract， the US Congress should threaten to end Section 230.

Reading Check

1. What attracted wide attention on Facebook？

2. What is unacceptable to Scott Morrison？

3. What should tech platforms do according to the author？

4. What are the basic purposes for Congress to adopt Section 230？

5. What does the author suggest the US Congress do with Section 230？

Language Study

Sentence for writing

In spite of the swift response， it remains the question why on earth we tolerate technology that can be used to inflame violence at lightning speed and global scale.

【信息提取】It remains the/a question why/whether... 為什么……依然是一個(gè)問(wèn)題。

【句式仿寫】他能否在天黑前回到家依然是一個(gè)問(wèn)題。

Cultural Background

美國(guó)CDA 230條款

互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的發(fā)展帶來(lái)了前所未有的問(wèn)題與挑戰(zhàn)，如何正確對(duì)待互聯(lián)網(wǎng)服務(wù)商？是否要因第三人發(fā)布的信息而承擔(dān)責(zé)任？這是各國(guó)面臨的問(wèn)題。2007年底，美國(guó)網(wǎng)民人數(shù)為2.18億，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)普及率達(dá)82%。作為世界上資訊最發(fā)達(dá)的國(guó)家，為了保護(hù)網(wǎng)絡(luò)的健康發(fā)展，美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)于1996年通過(guò)了《傳播莊重法》（Communications Decency Act of 1996，以下簡(jiǎn)稱CDA）。一年后，美國(guó)最高法院判決CDA違憲，僅第230條得以保存。CDA 230條款指出，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)服務(wù)不必為其用戶的行為負(fù)責(zé)。