题目内容：

    When is a media company not a media company? When it’s on the Internet. YouTube and Facebook convey what their users read and watch, and sell advertising next to it. Edited content, financed by advertising? It sounds a lot like the model that dominated media for much of the 20th century. And yet these firms have long claimed to be mere "platforms”，passively hosting content they say they are neither able nor willing to assess. It's true that they are not like traditional media companies. Much of their content is donated by their users; and algorithms (算) not editors, decide what is most worthy of attention. But they are getting more like them every day.

The anger over “fake news” has led Facebook to employ fact checkers, hire editorial staff to control the algorithms, crack down on the spread of junk and invest in tools to help out journalists.

So what kind of media companies are Facebook, YouTube and the rest? Not good ones. Their enormous power to inform, and the huge potential value of forming connections between people around the world, have in fair measure been wasted by prioritising attention-grabbing content 一 regardless of its quality, truthfulness or seriousness, which has made the online content cheap and its tone rude.

The tech giants are now coming under increasing pressure to clean up their acts. Perhaps more exactly, the advertisers have begun to revolt （反抗）：Google and Facebook now take nine out of every 10 new dollars spent on online advertising, although they have been accused of marking their own homework'", making unconvincing and unverifiable （无可考证的）claims about its effectiveness.

Meanwhile, the companies are avoiding responsibility for setting rules over their services. Excuses that the problem is too technically complex are not convincing: their engineers have proven skillful at cracking down on, say, copyright violation when it suits the firms. Nor does a firm position on free speech hold up: history is filled with examples of how a fair balance can be struck. Those have involved dialogue and democratic considerations that social media companies have thus iar mostly disdained （轻视）.They should do so no longer. The firms have enjoyed the privileges and profits of media for long enough: it's time they picked up the responsibilities too.

1.What does the author think of YouTube and Facebook's claim in Paragraph 1?

A.It is unexpected. B.It is absurd.

C.It is practical. D.It is influential.

2.YouTube and Facebook aren't considered as good media companies mainly because of  .

A.their low quality content B.their prejudice against morality

C.their being a time-waster D.their lack of control of speech

3.According to the text, tech giants' advertising business      .

A.may not actually satisfy advertisers' needs

B.has invited users^ questioning of privacy issues

C.will be cut down to respond to public discontent

D.may not gain profit as ad spending keeps rising

4.In the last paragraph, the author suggests that new media companies should    .

A.improve their overall technology

B.abandon the democratic ideal of free speech

C.take responsibility for regulating copyright issues

D.act as a medium despite their Internet background