题目内容：
根据下面资料，回答题 Spooked-especially by the irritation ofAmerican politicians，who regulate them-Some tech firmshave changed their rules．Twitter is to ban nearly all political advertising．Google，which owns YouTube，says it will ban ads that make egregiously false claims，and restrict the precision with which political adscan be aimed at specific groups of people．For now,Facebook is sticking to its gulls，saying it will notregulate political speech-though there are signs it is wavering．
Mr Zuckerberg is an unpopular man these days．Yet in this case he is right．The rules of digitaldemocracy should not be set by unaccountable bosses in the boardrooms of a handful ofAmerican firms．
If politicians want to change the behavior of candidates，the levers are in their hands．It is their job tomake the laws under which everyone else-technology finns included-must operate．
Partisan hostility and short-term self-interest，particularly in America，may make that difficult．But history offers hope．Politicians have agreed in the past on whether and how to regulate other mediatechnologies such as radio，television and newspapers．The rules created for analogue democracies offera relatively uncontroversial starting-point for digital ones．In America，for instance，the source of politicaltelevision ads must be disclosed．The salne should be true online．Facebook’s decision to stand back looksmore in keeping with the traditions ofAmerican democracy than Twitter’s or Google’s commitment to step ill．
New media offer new possibilities and hence raise new dangers．One is the ability to run“micro-targeted”ads，aimed at small groups thought to be most receptive to their message．To the extent that ithelps politicians deal with particular worries among voters，this can be beneficial．If abused，though，itcould amplify exactly the sort of two-faced campaigning the telegraph was supposed to have banished．
It is too soon to limit micro-targeting．Not only would it be hard to draw clear lines but，more important，politicians should be reluctant to ban each other’s speech．As a first step，they should enforce transparency,ensuring that even narrowly targeted ads are available for anyone to examine．Rival politicians will have
incentives to dig up evidence of foul play by their opponents，helping ke印everyone honest．The tech giantsate already making similar moves voluntarily．That could make it easier to convert them into legal requirements．
Another difference between old media and new is that the tech firms are planet-spanning in a waythat newspapers and television never were．Democracy,though，remains a local affair．America andBritain have different traditions；those of France，Australia or India are different again．If governments
decide to tighten the rules around online advertising-and perhaps attempt to drain the digital swampmore broadly-the result will be a profusion of local laws for the tech firms to comply with．That will bea burden，but it is the price of success．
We may learn from the first paragraph that A．Twitter used to allow political advertising．
B．YouTube cracked down on false advertising．
C．tech firms are dissatisfied with American politicians．
D．Facebook insists on regulating political advertising．
参考答案：【答案仅供学习，请勿对照自行用药等】
答案解析：