C

A new commodity brings about a highlyprofitable,fast-growing industry,urging antitrust（反垄断）regulatorsto step in to check those who control its flow. A century ago ,the resource inquestion was oil. Now similar concerns ares being raised by the giants（巨头）thatdeal in data, the oil of the digital age. The most valuable firms areGoogle,Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft. All look unstoppable.

Suchsituations have led to calls for the tech giants to be broken up. But sizealone is not a crime,The giants' success has benefited consumers. Few want tolive without search engines or a quick delivery, Far from charging consumershigh prices, many of these services are free (users pay, in effect, by handingover yet more data). And the appearance of new-born giants suggests thatnewcomers can make waves, too.

      But there is cause for concern. Theinternet has made data abundant, all-present and far more valuable, changingthe nature of data and competition. Google initially used the data collectedfrom users to target advertising better. But recently it has discovered thatdata can be turned into new services: translation and visual recognition, to besold to other companies. Internet companies’ control of data gives themenormous power. So they have a “God’s eye view” of activities in their ownmarkets and beyond.

Thisnature of data makes the antitrust measures of the past less useful. Breakingup firms like Google into five small ones would not stop remaking themselves:in time, one of them would become great again. A rethink is required—and as anew approach starts to become apparent, two ideas stand out.

Thefirst is that antitrust authorities need to move form the industrial age intothe 21st century. When considering a merger(兼并),forexample, they have traditionally used size to determine when to step in. Theynow need to take into account the extent of firms'data assets(资产)when assessing the impact of deals. The purchase price could also be a signalthat an established company is buying a new-borm threat. When this takes place,especially when a new-born company has no revenue to speak of, the regulatorsshould raise red flags.

       The second principle is to loosen the control that providers of on-line services have over data and give more to those who supply them.Companies could be forced to consumers what information they hold and how many money they make form it.Govemments could order the sharing of certain kinds of data,with users' consent.

  Restarting antitrust for the information age will not be easy But if govemments don't wants a data oconomy by a few giants,they must act soon. 

61.Why is there a call to break upgiants?

A. They have controlled the datamarket

B. They collect enormous private data

C. They no longer provide freeservices

D. They dismissed some new-borngiants

62.What does the technologicalinnovation in Paragraph 3 indicate?

A. Data giants’ technology is veryexpensive

B. Google’s idea is popular amongdata firms

C. Data can strengthen giants’controlling position

D. Data can be turned into newservices or products

63.By paying attention to firms’ data assets,antitrust regulators could        .

A. kill a new threat

B. avoid the size trap

C. favour bigger firms

D. charge higher prices

64.What is the purpose of loosening the giants’control of data?

A. Big companies could relieve data security pressure.

B. Governments could relieve their financial pressure.

C. Consumers could better protect their privacy.

D. Small companies could get more opportunities.