쉐도잉 연습: Nishad Sanzagiri | Technology Empires Debate | Proposition (1/6) - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기

연습 모드 선택

각 모드는 전체 화면 연습실로 열립니다.

132 문장

문장이 너무 짧거나 길면 Edit를 눌러 조정하세요.

We will now move to the motion before the House tonight,

which is, this House believes that tech empires threaten society.

I now look to the first speaker, the Director of Press, Nishad Sansegiri, St. Anthony's College, to open the case for the proposition.

Thank you, Madam President.

I'm humbled to be standing before you in this August chamber and honored to open the case for the proposition

on such an important and topical issue.

In the past couple of decades, the proliferation of Internet technologies has drastically altered every facet of life.

It has completely transformed how we communicate with each other, what we purchase and buy, and how we gather information.

This has been brought about by a few companies who embraced the early potential of readily available internet

and converted it into helpful insight and, well, lots of wealth.

No one on this side of the motion is aiming to claim that these companies, companies like Google, like Amazon,

Facebook, Microsoft, are inherently and completely evil.

But the fact is that as the years have gone by, these companies have become large, and so has their influence and power.

As the early Internet pioneer and MIT researcher Ethan Zuckerman recently wrote, it's obvious now that what we did was a fiasco.

So let me remind you that what we wanted to do was something brave and noble.

Ladies and gentlemen, the time has come for us to call the world's tech empires to account.

In the span of just a decade, firms such as Facebook, Google, and Amazon have risen to be the biggest companies on the planet

and have amassed a wealth of power that threatens us all.

They distort our democratic processes, they stockpile our data, and exercise undue sway over our markets.

It's no surprise that we are then in the midst of a backlash, or to use the more fashionable term, tech-lash, against these technology giants.

Today, I have three main arguments in support of the motion that I would like to explore for you.

First, that these tech empires are ludicrously big and growing exponentially.

Second, that they are anti-competitive and have created an oligopoly.

And finally, that they are damaging to a democracy.

I hope that you will take these points to heart

when you walk down that historic door at the end of this debate and cast your vote.

But before I go ahead and convince you that the rise of these tech empires threatens our society,

it falls on me to introduce the opposition speakers for tonight's debate.

Speaking first is Cecilia Zao, a first-year geographer at St. Catharines College.

Now, I hear that Cecilia is a boxer, and although I do know that this was the very chamber that Town vs. Gown took place last week,

I do hope that if she loses this motion tonight, she won't try to settle the score in that other way.

Our second speaker is Matt Warman, MP, who was the former technology editor of The Telegraph

and currently serves as a conservative party politician and co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on broadband and digital communication.

I hope that he will join us in agreeing with the leader of his own party, who mentioned last week at Davos

that tech companies need to seriously tackle how their technology can be used by those who wish to do us harm.

And finally, closing the motion for the opposition is Catherine Parsons, co-founder and co-CEO of Decoded, a startup which runs courses in programming.

Now, given that Ms. Parsons has already been in the news for imposing a company-wide email ban, stating that replying to emails took too much time out of a day,

I'm happy to report that when the union got in touch with her with the invitation to speak at this debate, she did respond to us rather promptly.

Jokes aside, I look forward to what I know will be a rigorous and challenging debate.

Madam President, these are your guests, and they're most welcome.

The fact that with a combined market value of $3 trillion, four of the five most valuable publicly traded firms in the world,

our technology companies ought to give us cause for concern.

In the final quarter of 2017, the five biggest technology firms, or the frightful five as the New York Times likes to call them,

which includes Google's parent Alphabet and companies like Amazon,

Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft, have had their combined quarterly revenues at 143 billion US dollars, which is greater than the GDP of most countries.

I mean, just take the data compiled by NGO Global Justice Now,

which highlights that Apple's revenues in 2015 were greater than those of countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia.

And these massive revenues are then turned into huge profits.

In fact, all the statistics associated with these tech companies are humongous.

Well, except for the tax records.

Now, these tech firms invest hardly anything in the actual creation of content, which is usually always user-generated, which helps their ludicrous profit margins.

Today, Google's profit margin is nearly twice as much as that of CBS, a traditional content creator.

Even Goldman Sachs has found itself in the rather awkward position

of being baffled by the astonishing profit margins these monopolies have reaped in recent years.

A 2016 Goldman Sachs report says, and I quote, we are always very for guiding for mean reversion,

but if we are wrong and high margins manage to endure for the next few years, particularly when global demand growth is below trend,

there are wider questions to be asked about the efficacy of capitalism.

Ladies and gentlemen, you know there's something seriously threatening about the rise these tech firms

when they scare Goldman Sachs against the idea of capitalism.

And then the stockpile of digital data that these empires hold is obvious.

I mean, Facebook not only owns the largest pool of personal data in the world, but it also has access to a social graph

that shows it how all of its two billion monthly active users are connected to each other.

Every time any of us consents to Facebook's data terms and conditions, we we give them permission to control our profile.

It becomes their property.

Every time, and the same data is either sold off in bulk to companies who are happy to pay for it,

or used to undercut rivals and strengthen the hold of these rising empires.

And this brings me to my second point, which is that these companies partake in anti-competitive behavior.

Ladies and gentlemen, Google has an 88% market share in online searches and search advertising,

while its Android mobile operating system enjoys an 80% global market share within its category.

In some sense, not since the era of Rockefeller Standard Oil has a company dominated a market to the extent

that Google does.

And that's not all.

Facebook has a 77% market share in mobile social media, and Amazon controls 74% of e-book sales, and will soon become the biggest clothing retailer in the United States.

This has created what The Economist calls the winner-takes-all economy of the technology age.

compared to any other industry in the world.

Well, I'll get to that in the rest of my speech.

And that's the next point.

So both Google and Facebook, for example, use their dominance in the market to squeeze monopoly ransoms from advertisers, which are always usually higher than market price.

Similarly, following Amazon's acquisition of Whole Foods, it has become both a retailer and a marketplace.

This highlights how a firm as big as Amazon can overshadow brick-and-mortar retail competition through extremely competitive prices,

only to then acquire the physical presence of its rivals as soon as the competitor's business becomes unwiable.

In similar vein, all these tech employers have used insights from the data they have amassed to uncover emerging rivals

and buy them off.

For example, Facebook's acquisition of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014, and Microsoft's acquisition of LinkedIn in 2016.

And when Snapchat rejected Facebook's offer in 2013, well, the rest is history.

I'm sure each one of us here knows about Instagram's story feature, which had cloned off Snapchat, leading the latter's share prices to drop significantly.

Point of information.

I think you're right in saying that there's an absence of external competition in the markets, but a lot of the competition often occurs in terms of especially

because of the career risk institutes of the certain developers that individuals often get by, by showing up a bit of crotch against their fellow colleagues and public departments with a very same competition.

So would you say market does apply to an entire competition and an entire value of metrics with these companies?

We'll talk about that.

Cool.

Ladies and gentlemen, in Silicon Valley today, in the home of the entrepreneur,

the number of startups is lower than it has been at any point since the 1970s.

And for most of the entrepreneurs that do exist, the zenith of their success is to one day be bought off by one of these giants.

I can imagine that our honorable opposition would like you to believe that these first are good for the consumers.

Let's say that many online services would be worse off if their providers were smaller, and in total, the prices of goods has come down.

But the issue is that this raises question of fair competition, because these firms often benefit from legal exemptions.

Unlike mainstream publishers, Facebook and Google are hardly accountable for what users say on them.

100

It is no surprise then that Trump, for example, was able to and still is able to get his message across on Facebook

101

and Twitter in a way

102

that is enormously influential without undertaking the kind of obvious quality checks that we would associate with reaching the mass public.

103

And it's not like these tech empires just compete in the market.

104

From all the statistics that we have seen, they are the market.

105

And this brings me to my final point of the night.

106

There's no doubt that technology and the web has become crucial to all of our lives and also to the global economy.

107

And yet, the decisions on how these technology companies do what they do have never been voted upon by anyone.

108

Those judgments were made by executives at Facebook, at Google and at Amazon, and imposed upon a society without any regulatory scrutiny.

109

Today, instead of solving the world's problems, as I'm sure our honorable opposition would claim they do, these tech empires have ended up fashioning greater complications.

110

Let's take the example of the Russian interference in the 2016 U.S presidential elections.

111

Facebook disclosed late last year that it had discovered $100,000 worth of ads

112

by several hundred inauthentic accounts that appeared to be affiliated with Russia during the campaign.

113

But today, under increasing pressure, these tech firms are intensifying their public relations offensive in order to safeguard their reputation

114

and by extension the pockets of their shareholders.

115

However, for all the empty talk that Silicon Valley has partaken in, its fundamental attention has always been on whatever it could monetize.

116

For example, when Pulitzer Prize winning online news source ProPublica attempted last September to buy targeted ads for Jew haters on Facebook,

117

the tech giant did not self-reflect on whether this was an immoral idea.

118

It approved the ads within 15 minutes and asked the purchasers on how they would like to pay.

119

To conclude, in this day and age, Facebook defines how our society converses, Amazon decides what we purchase,

120

and Google regulates how we obtain information.

121

These are the companies

122

that have the power to allocate the verdict on who gets a digital bullhorn and who is silenced from the interweb.

123

Nothing posits their power and the obscure rationales behind their community guidelines more than the fact

124

that these firms suspend accounts and handles for posting topless photos

125

and yet deem it unproblematic when the Twitter-in-chief of the free world threatens nuclear war in less than 280 characters.

126

Ladies and gentlemen, tonight when you're walking out of that historic door, you'll be making a choice.

127

A choice about what kind of a society you want to live in.

128

One, where a few tech empires rule the many for their own profit, where technologists come for your money and against your democracy just as they have come for your personal data,

129

or a society based on healthy competition and free and fair dissemination of information.

130

It is for this reason, ladies and gentlemen, that I urge you to vote for the proposition and walk out of the door on the right.

131

Thank you.

132

Thank you.

앱 다운로드

유창하게 말하는 데 필요한 모든 것

AI 발음 평가문장마다 점수 확인

IPA 발음 연습모든 소리 마스터

단어 학습나만의 단어장 만들기

단어 게임놀면서 외우기

QR 스캔

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

같은 채널

Dr Maszlee Malik argues Islam is like democracy: it is not perfect - but they are compatible 6/8

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

THB that the Monarchy Died with the Queen - Hugo Vickers - Opp

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

THB Reform is Fit to Govern - Matt Goodwin - Prop

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

Melissa Hinkley | Social Media & Journalism Debate | Opposition (2/6)

Daily ConversationUniversity Students

THB the English Flag Has Become a Symbol of Division - Femi Oluwole - Prop

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

THB Israel Never Truly Wanted Peace with Palestine - Avi Mayer - Opp

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

Climate Change Debate | Prof. Bruce Pardy | Opposition

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

THB Reform is Fit to Govern - Rachel Millward - Opp

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

Katie Hopkins | We Should NOT Support No Platforming (6/8) | Oxford Union

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

Climate Change Debate | Natalie Bennett | Opposition (8/8)

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

Climate Change Debate | Barry Gardiner MP | Proposition (3/8)

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

Ahmad Nawaz | We Should Do Whatever Necessary (1/8) | Oxford Union Debate

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep

Social Media Corrupts Human Interactions | Emma Gannon | Part 3 of 6

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

FOR YOU

이 레슨의 어휘와 말하기 포인트

이 영상에는 섀도잉할 문장 132개와 단어 2132개가 있습니다. 말하는 구간의 길이는 13:56입니다. 화자는 분당 약 153단어로, 일상 대화에 가까운 자연스러운 속도로 말합니다. 단어의 82%가 영어에서 가장 많이 쓰이는 3,000단어에 속합니다. 나머지는 연습 전에 미리 확인해 두세요.

이 영상의 핵심 어휘

영상에 나오는 익혀 둘 만한 단어 15개를 발음, 뜻과 함께 정리했습니다.

단어	발음	뜻
gentleman 명사	/ˈd͡ʒɛn.təl.mən/	신사, 젠틀맨
threaten 동사	/ˈθɹɛt.n̩/	위협하다, 협박하다
margin 명사	/ˈmɑɹ.d͡ʒɪn/	여백, 마진
acquisition 명사	/ˌæk.wɪˈzɪʃ.ən/	획득
rival 명사	/ˈɹaɪvəl/	경쟁자, 라이벌
proposition 명사	/ˌpɹɑpəˈzɪʃən/	제안
chamber 명사	/ˈt͡ʃeɪ̯mbɚ/	침실
entrepreneur 명사	/ˌɑn.tɹə.pɹəˈnɝ/	기업가, 기업인
capitalism 명사	/ˈkæp.ə.təlˌɪzm̩/	자본주의
pocket 명사	/ˈpɑ.kɪt/	호주머니, 포켓
clothing 명사	/ˈkloʊðɪŋ/	옷, 의상
harm 명사	/hɑːm/	해
occur 동사	/əˈkɜː/	일어나다, 발생하다
reputation 명사	/ˌɹɛpjʊˈteɪʃən/	평판, 명성
founder 명사	/ˈfaʊ̯n.dəː/	창설자, 설립자

영상에 나오는 구동사

단어	뜻
come down 동사	내려오다

주의할 발음

화자는 I'm, you're, I'll 같은 축약형과 약화된 형태를 11번 사용합니다. 들리는 대로 짧게 발음하세요.

“th” 소리: threaten /ˈθɹɛt.n̩/, clothing /ˈkloʊðɪŋ/, gather /ˈɡæðɚ/, strengthen /ˈstɹɛŋ(k)θən/, inauthentic /ˌɪnɔˈθɛn.tɪk/
“sh”와 “zh” 소리: acquisition /ˌæk.wɪˈzɪʃ.ən/, proposition /ˌpɹɑpəˈzɪʃən/, reputation /ˌɹɛpjʊˈteɪʃən/, extension /ɪkˈstɛnʃən/, associate /əˈsoʊʃi.ət/
긴 단어 — 강세 위치에 주의: acquisition /ˌæk.wɪˈzɪʃ.ən/, proposition /ˌpɹɑpəˈzɪʃən/, entrepreneur /ˌɑn.tɹə.pɹəˈnɝ/, capitalism /ˈkæp.ə.təlˌɪzm̩/, reputation /ˌɹɛpjʊˈteɪʃən/

이 영상으로 연습하는 방법

먼저 말하지 않고 영상을 끝까지 듣고 모르는 단어를 적어 둡니다.
0.75배속으로 한 문장씩 섀도잉을 시작하고, 익숙해지면 보통 속도로 돌아갑니다.
자신의 목소리를 녹음해 원본과 비교하고, gentleman, threaten, margin 같은 단어에 특히 주의합니다.

이 영상의 문법

화자가 가장 많이 쓰는 문형을 영상 속 실제 표현과 함께 정리했습니다.

문형	영상 속 표현
현재완료 have/has + 과거분사 — 과거의 일이 지금도 관련이 있을 때	has been brought · have gone · has come
수동태 be + 과거분사 — 누가 하는지보다 무슨 일이 일어나는지에 초점	has been brought · are then turned · being baffled
관계절 who / which + 절 — 사람이나 사물에 대한 추가 정보	those who wish · dollars, which is · content, which is

쉐도잉이란? 영어 실력을 빠르게 키우는 과학적 방법

쉐도잉(Shadowing)은 원래 전문 통역사 훈련을 위해 개발된 언어 학습 기법으로, 다언어 학자인 Dr. Alexander Arguelles에 의해 대중화된 방법입니다. 핵심 원리는 간단하지만 매우 강력합니다: 원어민의 영어를 들으면서 1~2초의 짧은 지연으로 즉시 소리 내어 따라 말하는 것——마치 '그림자(shadow)'처럼 화자를 따라가는 것입니다. 문법 공부나 수동적인 청취와 달리, 쉐도잉은 뇌와 입 근육이 동시에 실시간으로 영어를 처리하고 재현하도록 훈련합니다. 연구에 따르면 이 방법은 발음 정확도, 억양, 리듬, 연음, 청취력, 말하기 유창성을 크게 향상시킵니다. IELTS 스피킹 준비와 자연스러운 영어 소통을 원하는 분들에게 특히 효과적입니다.

섀도잉 방법: 단계별 전체 가이드 읽기 →

쉐도잉 연습: Nishad Sanzagiri | Technology Empires Debate | Proposition (1/6) - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기

연습 모드 선택

앱 다운로드

THB the English Flag Has Become a Symbol of Division - Patrick Christys - Opp

Peter Singer | It Is NOT Immoral To Be A Billionaire (8/8) | Oxford Union

Toby Young | Woke Culture HAS Gone Too Far - 3/8 | Oxford Union

Both Russia and America only pursue power, not principle, argues Moosa Haraj

Tommy Nguyen: Woke Culture HAS Gone Too Far - 5/8 | Oxford Union

Climate Change Debate | Kriti Joshi | Opposition

Social Media Does NOT Corrupt Human Interactions | Liam Hackett | Part 4 of 6

Dr Maszlee Malik argues Islam is like democracy: it is not perfect - but they are compatible 6/8

THB that the Monarchy Died with the Queen - Hugo Vickers - Opp

THB Reform is Fit to Govern - Matt Goodwin - Prop

Melissa Hinkley | Social Media & Journalism Debate | Opposition (2/6)

THB the English Flag Has Become a Symbol of Division - Femi Oluwole - Prop

THB Israel Never Truly Wanted Peace with Palestine - Avi Mayer - Opp

Climate Change Debate | Prof. Bruce Pardy | Opposition

THB Reform is Fit to Govern - Rachel Millward - Opp

Katie Hopkins | We Should NOT Support No Platforming (6/8) | Oxford Union

Climate Change Debate | Natalie Bennett | Opposition (8/8)

Climate Change Debate | Barry Gardiner MP | Proposition (3/8)

Ahmad Nawaz | We Should Do Whatever Necessary (1/8) | Oxford Union Debate

Social Media Corrupts Human Interactions | Emma Gannon | Part 3 of 6

Social Media Corrupts Human Interactions | Jack Symonds | Part 1 of 6

ENGLISH SPEECH | AKASH BANERJEE: India’s Path (English Subtitles)

A revolution that takes our power? | Yuval Noah Harari

Nanotechnology: technology on a small scale | IELTS LISTENING TEST | SECTION-4

Geoffrey Hinton, Nobel Prize in Physics 2024: Banquet speech

Technology Made Us Human

Video

Should social media platforms censor hate speech? | Nadine Strossen | Big Think

“But you did it first!”: A defense of the whataboutism

The Biggest Problem No One Is Talking About

ENGLISH SPEECH | MARK ZUCKERBERG: Free Speech (English Subtitles)

이 레슨의 어휘와 말하기 포인트

이 영상의 핵심 어휘

영상에 나오는 구동사

주의할 발음

이 영상으로 연습하는 방법

이 영상의 문법

쉐도잉이란? 영어 실력을 빠르게 키우는 과학적 방법