请回答1994

因凡蒂诺还想扩军，甚至可能“腾出名额让中国、印度参赛”_我的网站

摩登家庭

一 |

虎扑07月16日讯 The Athletic UK通讯记者Matt Slater撰写因凡蒂诺专栏。

二 | "Social media is now the main source of information about the world for 16-24-year-olds, and for all ethnic minorities in the UK," explained Ellis Cashmore, honorary professor of sociology at Aston University in the UK.,"Yet platform moderators have practically unrestricted power to edit, and, if they wish, remove content. This is an unheard-of censorial power. I can't think that, in history, proprietors have ever had such colossal power to control the flow and content of information, not just to one population, but to the world.",The Online Safety Bill was first introduced in the British Parliament in March 2022 with the aim of holding social media platforms, search engines and various websites to account for hosting illegal activities or spreading harmful content.,The newly introduced amendment is "designed to guard against the arbitrary removal of articles from journalists at recognized news outlets when shared on social media platforms," according to the UK government's website. The authors of the amendment draw attention to the fact that half of British adults use social media for news, with Facebook*, Twitter and Instagram* being the most popular platforms. When it comes to 16-24 year-olds, the internet is the most-used platform.,Once the bill comes into force, social media giants would be required "to ensure recognized news publishers’ articles remain viewable and accessible on their sites even if they are under review by moderators.",Facebook Doesn't Know What Happens to Users' Data, How It Spreads as Regulators Tighten Their Grip27 April, 19:01 GMT,The introduction of the new amendment can be explained by the fact that the tech giants have proved themselves impossible to control, the professor explained.,"Tech companies operate in a relatively unrestricted way and governments around the world usually rely on the companies' goodwill," he said.,Still, the new amendment is focused on so-called "category one companies", which include "the largest and most popular social media platforms", and is not designed to shield alternative media sources.,The bill's selective approach has been manifested by its earlier amendment obligating social media platforms "to proactively look for and remove disinformation from foreign state actors which harm the UK." It specifically singles out Russian news, with an obvious reference to Sputnik News and RT - both previously banned by the EU and social media giants after the beginning of the Russian special operation to de-militarize and de-Nazify Ukraine.,"Freedom of speech and expression are highly valued principles in western Europe and North America," says Cashmore. "But it is interesting that, after the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, there were no protests at the decisions of western governments to prohibit broadcasts and news supplies from RT, Sputnik and maybe a few less important news outlets.",EU Bans Work of Sputnik News Sites, Broadcasting of RT TV Channel in the Community From 2 March2 March, 11:53 GMT,The professor notes that wiping Russian news from the media sphere is senseless given that many westerners are interested in learning Russian perspectives. "This does not mean they would be persuaded or even influenced, but they feel entitled to make up their own minds independently. They have been denied that facility," Cashmore stressed.,"Since February, Russia, its people and its values have been condemned, denounced and stigmatized," said the professor. "Vladimir Putin has been personally vilified. It is difficult to see this ending, at least not for 30 years. Russia has been excluded from many world affairs and many believe Russia and the other BRICS countries may coalesce into an international configuration to rival NATO. This would become a new world order.",Meanwhile, the bill's amendments have raised concerns among British campaigners who are warning the government that in its current form the proposed internet safety laws are “on the verge of being unworkable," according to The Independent.,In particular, campaigners have advocated for a number of measures to strengthen freedom of expression and rights safeguards to better protect people from marginalized backgrounds and expand transparency requirements on firms to boost access to data for researchers and academics.,*Facebook and Instagram are banned in Russia over extremist activities.。因凡蒂诺在接受瑞士媒体Bluewin采访时，实际上证实了自己将继续推进世界杯扩军至64支球队的计划。

三 | 尽管他此前曾表示，在刚从32队扩至48队之后不应这么快再次扩军，且国际足联理事会内部也有成员对此持反对意见。国际足联主席詹尼-因凡蒂诺的言论表明，这一议题将在2030年世界杯之前进行探讨。但这行得通吗？毕竟，他的论点大概会是这样的：本届预选赛中，10支非洲球队有9支打进了32强；只有库拉索遭遇惨败（以1-7输给德国，尽管他们也曾逼平击败过德国队的厄瓜多尔队）；还有佛得角的表现又如何呢？更别提扩军至64队还能解决一些荒谬的问题：比如小组赛12个小组第三名中只有8个能晋级的尴尬规则，或者像苏格兰这样的球队必须苦苦等待、在踢完更多比赛前都不知道自己是出局还是晋级的情况；同时还能增加24场比赛卖给转播商，甚至可能腾出名额让中国、印度、意大利和尼日利亚等国球队参赛。他甚至可能试图说服那些持怀疑态度的人，声称2030年扩军至64队只是一次性举措，旨在隆重纪念首届世界杯百年诞辰——即让曾举办首届赛事的南美洲承办四组小组赛，而不是区区三场比赛……但这种事一旦开了先例，就像挤出的牙膏一样再也塞不回去了；正如我们即将见证的那样，足球比赛正突然从“上下半场”制转变为“四节”制。

四 | 如果说那种赤裸裸的敛财行径——或者用那位全球头号“幸福缔造者”的话来说，这是顺理成章的下一步——让你感到反感，那么对于一项由48支球队参加、或许每两年（而非四年）举办一次的世俱杯，你又作何感想呢？加码投入、全面出击、不断索取、迫使对手转入防守——因凡蒂诺深谙此道。至于他是否真正维护了这项运动的长远利益？这恐怕还有待观察。当然，亚足联、中北美及加勒比海地区足联和欧足联可能会继续反对64支球队参加的世界杯……但也可能发现，其成员国已不再认为扩充参赛队伍有什么坏处，尤其是考虑到这能进一步增加他们从国际足联获得的拨款。毕竟，如果佛得角、库拉索、海地和乌兹别克斯坦都能获得参赛资格，那他们为何不能呢？同样，欧洲足球俱乐部协会主席纳赛尔-阿尔-赫莱菲或许会坚定捍卫欧洲顶级联赛及洲际杯赛的地位，从而坚决抵制规模更大或举办频率更高的世俱杯……但也可能这位巴黎圣日耳曼和beIN体育的掌门人会意识到大势所趋，转而选择顺水推舟。

五 | 事实上，在我们那项非正式调查中，几位受访者指出，无论这一合资项目最终形态如何，终究需要一位掌舵人；而一手促成此事的因凡蒂诺，无疑是最佳人选。

六 | 如此一来，他和阿尔-赫莱菲或许能互换职位——正如The Athletic去年首次提出的那样。这肯定比因凡蒂诺（再次）修改章程、废除三届限制以延长其在国际足联的任期（超过2031年）更有可能发生吧？“眼下我不排除任何可能性，”一位忧心忡忡的受访者说道。“我想，他身边的人会抛出这个想法，”另一位人士说道，“这或许会成为各大洲足联真正的‘红线’——不过，我可不敢拿身家性命去打赌。