Greentrolling A sarcastic comment under a company’s glossy climate post may look trivial, yet it can sometimes do what a formal objection ca...
Đề bài
Greentrolling A sarcastic comment under a company’s glossy climate post may look trivial, yet it can sometimes do what a formal objection cannot: make the message suddenly look unstable. This effect helps explain greentrolling, a tactic in which activists use humour, parody, or exaggerated agreement to expose the weakness of corporate environmental claims. Instead of rejecting a message from the outside, greentrolling often steps inside it, borrowing its tone and imagery until the contradiction becomes harder to ignore. That strategy works especially well when companies present sustainability as a finished identity rather than a disputed practice. A slogan about a greener future may sound convincing on its own, but once it is repeated with a slight twist, its confidence can start to collapse. Greentrolling uses this moment of discomfort carefully. It does not usually try to win through detailed debate; it tries to show that the original message was too neat, too controlled, or too selective. In that sense, the joke is not separate from the criticism. It is the form the criticism takes. Online platforms make this style of response easier to spread. Long explanations require attention, background knowledge, and patience, while irony can travel quickly across posts, comments, memes, and screenshots. A witty reply can invite people into a discussion before they have fully learned its technical details. This gives greentrolling a wider social reach than some traditional forms of campaigning. What begins as a small act of mockery may therefore help shift how audiences read a company’s public image, especially when similar reactions gather around the same message. At the same time, visibility and effectiveness are not identical. A post can be widely mocked and still leave the structures behind it intact. For that reason, greentrolling is often most useful when it works alongside reporting, public pressure, and demands for regulation. On its own, it may seem too superficial; combined with broader activism, it can sharpen public scrutiny, disarm polished branding, and keep questions of corporate accountability in view. [Adapted from Grist] Question 23: According to paragraph 1, greentrolling involves all of the following EXCEPT __________. A. use of parody B. formal objections C. sarcastic comments D. exaggerated agreement Question 24: The word “collapse” in paragraph 2 is closest in meaning to __________. A. fall B. break C. weaken D. fail Question 25: The word “witty” in paragraph 3 is OPPOSITE in meaning to __________. A. dull B. clever C. sharp D. engaging Question 26: The word “this style of response” in paragraph 3 refers to __________. A. technical detail B. irony and mockery C. long explanation D. background knowledge Question 27: Which of the following best paraphrases the underlined sentence in paragraph 3? A. Individual instances of ridicule are likely to be more effective in altering a corporate image than a large-scale collective movement on social media. B. The accumulation of uniform satirical responses to a single corporate message can lead to a significant transformation in public perception. C. A company's public image is usually immune to minor acts of mockery unless these reactions are spread across various online platforms simultaneously. D. The more a company’s message is mocked by the audience, the less likely it is for that company to maintain its original tone and imagery. Question 28: According to paragraph 2, greentrolling is particularly effective when corporations __________. A. engage in lengthy and detailed public debates B. admit their sustainability practices are disputed C. portray eco-friendly efforts as a completed status D. use uncontrolled and messy marketing strategies Question 29: In which paragraph does the author discuss the limitations of greentrolling as a standalone tactic for structural change? A. Paragraph 1 B. Paragraph 2 C. Paragraph 3 D. Paragraph 4 Question 30: In which paragraph does the author contrast the communicative efficiency of irony with that of more traditional, detailed informational approaches? A. Paragraph 1 B. Paragraph 2 C. Paragraph 3 D. Paragraph 4 |