IELTS Reading: Mạng Xã Hội và Tự Do Ngôn Luận – Đề Thi Mẫu Có Đáp Án Chi Tiết

Mở Bài

Chủ đề về mạng xã hội và tự do ngôn luận là một trong những đề tài thường xuyên xuất hiện trong bài thi IELTS Reading, đặc biệt trong những năm gần đây khi công nghệ số đã thay đổi hoàn toàn cách chúng ta giao tiếp và chia sẻ thông tin. Câu hỏi “What Are The Implications Of Social Media For Freedom Of Speech?” không chỉ phản ánh xu hướng thời đại mà còn là dạng chủ đề học thuật điển hình trong các đề thi Cambridge IELTS.

Bài viết này cung cấp cho bạn một bộ đề thi IELTS Reading hoàn chỉnh với 3 passages được thiết kế theo đúng cấu trúc và độ khó của đề thi thật. Bạn sẽ được luyện tập với đầy đủ các dạng câu hỏi phổ biến, từ Multiple Choice, True/False/Not Given đến Matching Headings và Summary Completion. Sau mỗi passage là đáp án chi tiết kèm giải thích cụ thể, giúp bạn hiểu rõ cách xác định đáp án đúng và kỹ thuật paraphrase trong IELTS Reading.

Bộ đề này phù hợp cho học viên từ band 5.0 trở lên, với độ khó tăng dần từ Passage 1 (Easy) đến Passage 3 (Hard), giúp bạn làm quen với áp lực thời gian và yêu cầu đọc hiểu ở nhiều mức độ khác nhau.

Hướng Dẫn Làm Bài IELTS Reading

Tổng Quan Về IELTS Reading Test

IELTS Reading Test kéo dài 60 phút với 3 passages và tổng cộng 40 câu hỏi. Mỗi câu trả lời đúng được tính 1 điểm, không có điểm âm cho câu trả lời sai. Điểm số thô (raw score) sẽ được chuyển đổi thành band điểm từ 1-9.

Phân bổ thời gian khuyến nghị:

• Passage 1 (Easy): 15-17 phút cho 13 câu hỏi
• Passage 2 (Medium): 18-20 phút cho 13 câu hỏi
• Passage 3 (Hard): 23-25 phút cho 14 câu hỏi
• Thời gian chuyển đáp án: 2-3 phút cuối

Lưu ý quan trọng:

• Không có thời gian bổ sung để chuyển đáp án (khác với IELTS Listening)
• Viết đáp án trực tiếp lên phiếu trả lời trong khi làm bài
• Chú ý chính tả và số lượng từ giới hạn trong đề

Các Dạng Câu Hỏi Trong Đề Này

Bộ đề thi mẫu này bao gồm 7 dạng câu hỏi phổ biến nhất trong IELTS Reading:

1. Multiple Choice – Chọn đáp án đúng từ 3-4 phương án
2. True/False/Not Given – Xác định thông tin đúng/sai/không được đề cập
3. Matching Information – Nối thông tin với đoạn văn tương ứng
4. Matching Headings – Chọn tiêu đề phù hợp cho mỗi đoạn
5. Sentence Completion – Hoàn thành câu với số từ giới hạn
6. Summary Completion – Điền từ vào đoạn tóm tắt
7. Short-answer Questions – Trả lời câu hỏi ngắn trong giới hạn từ

IELTS Reading Practice Test

PASSAGE 1 – The Digital Revolution in Public Discourse

Độ khó: Easy (Band 5.0-6.5)

Thời gian đề xuất: 15-17 phút

The rise of social media platforms has fundamentally transformed the way people communicate and share information. In the past two decades, platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok have become integral components of daily life for billions of users worldwide. These digital spaces have created unprecedented opportunities for individuals to express their opinions, share experiences, and engage in public discourse on a scale never before imaginable.

Before the advent of social media, traditional media outlets such as newspapers, television, and radio held exclusive control over public information dissemination. Ordinary citizens had limited channels through which they could share their views with a wide audience. Letters to newspaper editors, calls to radio talk shows, or participation in local community meetings represented the primary means of public expression. This system created significant barriers to entry for those wishing to contribute to public conversations, effectively limiting freedom of speech to those with access to traditional media platforms.

The emergence of social media has dramatically democratized the process of information sharing. Anyone with an internet connection can now create content, share opinions, and potentially reach millions of viewers without requiring approval from traditional gatekeepers. This transformation has enabled marginalized voices – including ethnic minorities, political dissidents, and social activists – to bypass conventional media channels and communicate directly with global audiences. The Arab Spring uprisings of 2011 exemplified this phenomenon, as protesters used Twitter and Facebook to organize demonstrations, share real-time updates, and attract international attention to their causes.

Furthermore, social media has facilitated the formation of online communities centered around shared interests, identities, or causes. These digital gathering spaces enable people who might never meet in physical life to connect, exchange ideas, and mobilize collective action. Environmental activists coordinate global campaigns, patients with rare diseases find support networks, and hobbyists discover like-minded enthusiasts across geographical boundaries. This unprecedented connectivity has created new dimensions of freedom of expression by allowing individuals to find audiences who are genuinely interested in their perspectives.

However, the democratization of speech through social media has introduced significant challenges. The sheer volume of information circulating on these platforms makes it difficult for users to distinguish between credible sources and misinformation. False claims can spread rapidly, sometimes reaching more people than factual corrections. During the COVID-19 pandemic, health authorities struggled to combat viral misinformation about the disease, vaccines, and treatments that circulated widely on social media platforms.

Another concern involves the algorithmic curation of content that users see on their feeds. Social media platforms employ sophisticated algorithms that prioritize content based on engagement metrics such as likes, shares, and comments. This system tends to promote emotionally charged or controversial material, as such content generates higher engagement. Critics argue that these algorithms can create echo chambers where users primarily encounter viewpoints that reinforce their existing beliefs, potentially limiting exposure to diverse perspectives despite the vast array of voices present on these platforms.

The global nature of social media also creates complex questions about whose standards should govern online speech. Different countries have vastly different legal frameworks regarding acceptable expression. Speech that is protected in one nation might constitute a criminal offense in another. Social media companies must navigate these conflicting legal requirements while maintaining platforms that serve users across multiple jurisdictions. This situation has led to inconsistent content moderation practices and ongoing debates about whether these private companies should have the power to determine what speech is acceptable on their platforms.

Despite these challenges, social media continues to expand opportunities for individuals to exercise freedom of speech in meaningful ways. The platforms have given voice to countless individuals who previously lacked access to public forums, facilitated important social movements, and enabled new forms of creative expression. The relationship between social media and freedom of speech remains complex and evolving, requiring ongoing dialogue about how to maximize the benefits while addressing the legitimate concerns these technologies raise.

Questions 1-6

Do the following statements agree with the information given in the passage?

Write:

• TRUE if the statement agrees with the information
• FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
• NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this

1. Social media platforms have existed for more than twenty years.
2. Before social media, ordinary people had easy access to share their views with large audiences.
3. The Arab Spring demonstrations were entirely organized through social media.
4. Social media allows people with rare medical conditions to connect with others facing similar challenges.
5. All false information on social media reaches fewer people than factual corrections.
6. Social media algorithms are designed to promote the most truthful content.

Questions 7-10

Complete the sentences below.

Choose NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS from the passage for each answer.

7. Traditional media outlets like newspapers and television had __ over how information was shared with the public.
8. Social media has allowed __ such as ethnic minorities to communicate without using traditional media channels.
9. The amount of content on social media makes it hard to identify __ from reliable information.
10. Social media platforms use __ to decide which content appears in users’ feeds.

Questions 11-13

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.

11. According to the passage, before social media, public expression was mainly limited to:

    • A. people who owned media companies
    • B. those with access to traditional media channels
    • C. government officials only
    • D. educated professionals

12. The passage suggests that social media algorithms prioritize content that:

    • A. is most accurate and factual
    • B. comes from verified sources
    • C. generates high levels of user engagement
    • D. complies with government regulations

13. The main challenge for social media companies operating globally is:

    • A. translating content into multiple languages
    • B. dealing with different legal standards across countries
    • C. maintaining internet connections worldwide
    • D. charging appropriate subscription fees

---

PASSAGE 2 – Content Moderation and the Paradox of Platform Power

Độ khó: Medium (Band 6.0-7.5)

Thời gian đề xuất: 18-20 phút

The question of who should control online speech has emerged as one of the most contentious debates in contemporary society. Social media platforms occupy a paradoxical position: they are private companies with legal rights to establish their own policies, yet they function as de facto public squares where much of modern political and social discourse occurs. This dual nature creates profound questions about the appropriate balance between corporate autonomy and the public interest in maintaining open channels for free expression.

Content moderation – the practice of reviewing and removing material that violates platform policies – has become increasingly sophisticated and controversial. Major platforms employ thousands of human moderators and invest heavily in artificial intelligence systems designed to identify and filter problematic content. These systems scan millions of posts daily, flagging material that potentially violates rules against hate speech, violence, harassment, misinformation, and other prohibited categories. The scale of this operation is staggering: Facebook alone reportedly removes millions of pieces of content monthly, while YouTube handles over 500 hours of uploaded video every minute.

The implementation of content moderation policies raises fundamental questions about free speech principles. Proponents argue that removing harmful content is necessary to protect vulnerable users and maintain civil discourse. They point to documented cases where unmoderated platforms have been exploited to spread terrorist propaganda, coordinate violent attacks, and disseminate harmful misinformation. The Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, where Facebook was used to spread hate speech that incited violence, exemplifies the potential consequences when platforms fail to moderate dangerous content effectively. Following international criticism, Facebook acknowledged that it had not done enough to prevent its platform from being used to foment division and incite offline violence.

Critics of aggressive content moderation, however, contend that these policies can stifle legitimate expression and reflect the subjective biases of platform executives and moderators. Determinations about what constitutes hate speech, misinformation, or harmful content necessarily involve value judgments that reasonable people may dispute. Content that one person views as offensive political commentary, another might consider protected speech that contributes to important debates. Furthermore, marginalized communities sometimes find their content disproportionately flagged by automated systems that fail to understand cultural context, potentially silencing the very voices that social media was supposed to empower.

The opacity of content moderation processes compounds these concerns. Platforms typically do not disclose the specific criteria used to evaluate content or the exact functioning of their algorithmic detection systems. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for users to understand why their content was removed or to effectively appeal moderation decisions. Research has revealed significant inconsistencies in how identical content is treated, with similar posts receiving different outcomes based on factors that remain unclear to outside observers. Such inconsistency undermines user confidence in the fairness of these systems and raises questions about accountability.

The problem is further complicated by jurisdictional conflicts between different national legal frameworks. The European Union’s approach to online speech differs substantially from that of the United States, which traditionally affords broader protections under First Amendment jurisprudence. Meanwhile, authoritarian governments frequently demand that platforms remove political criticism or content from dissidents. Companies face pressure to comply with local laws to maintain market access, yet doing so may mean suppressing speech that would be protected in liberal democracies. When Twitter and Facebook restricted account access for political reasons in certain countries, they faced accusations of complicity in censorship, yet refusing these requests might have resulted in their complete exclusion from those markets.

Recent years have witnessed growing calls for regulatory intervention to address these challenges. The European Union has implemented the Digital Services Act, which establishes comprehensive rules for how platforms must moderate content and handle illegal material. This legislation requires greater transparency in moderation decisions and gives users stronger rights to challenge content removal. In the United States, debates continue about whether to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which currently provides platforms with broad immunity from liability for user-generated content. Proposed reforms range from complete repeal to more targeted modifications that would condition immunity on platforms meeting certain moderation standards.

Some scholars advocate for procedural justice approaches that focus less on specific content decisions and more on ensuring fair, transparent, and consistent processes. Under this framework, platforms would be required to clearly articulate their policies, apply them consistently, provide meaningful explanations for moderation decisions, and offer robust appeals mechanisms. Facebook’s establishment of its Oversight Board – an independent body that reviews contested content decisions – represents one attempt to implement such an approach, though critics question whether this structure provides truly independent oversight or merely legitimizes corporate decision-making.

The tension between protecting free expression and preventing harm through content moderation reflects deeper questions about the nature of speech rights in the digital age. As social media platforms continue to evolve and new technologies like generative artificial intelligence emerge, these debates will likely intensify. Finding appropriate solutions requires balancing multiple legitimate interests: protecting individual expression, preventing real-world harm, respecting cultural differences, maintaining platform viability, and preserving space for the robust public discourse that democracies require.

Questions 14-18

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.

14. According to the passage, social media platforms are paradoxical because they:

    • A. are both profitable and free to use
    • B. are private companies that serve a public function
    • C. employ both humans and artificial intelligence
    • D. operate globally but follow local laws

15. The Rohingya genocide is mentioned as an example of:

    • A. successful content moderation
    • B. the dangers of unmoderated content
    • C. government censorship
    • D. platform transparency

16. Critics of content moderation argue that:

    • A. platforms should remove more harmful content
    • B. only governments should control online speech
    • C. moderation policies can silence legitimate voices
    • D. artificial intelligence is more effective than human moderators

17. The Digital Services Act primarily focuses on:

    • A. how platforms generate revenue
    • B. international cooperation on content standards
    • C. transparency and user rights in content moderation
    • D. criminal penalties for platform executives

18. The procedural justice approach emphasizes:

    • A. specific rules about what content is acceptable
    • B. fair and transparent moderation processes
    • C. government control of social media
    • D. eliminating all content moderation

Questions 19-23

Complete the summary below.

Choose NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS from the passage for each answer.

Content moderation involves reviewing user posts to identify violations of platform rules. Companies use both human workers and (19) __ to handle the enormous volume of content. However, the process raises concerns about free speech. The (20) __ of moderation systems makes it difficult for users to understand decisions. Additionally, (21) __ in how similar content is treated undermines trust in these systems. Different countries have different legal frameworks, creating (22) __ for global platforms. Some experts recommend focusing on (23) __ rather than arguing about specific content decisions.

Questions 24-26

Do the following statements agree with the claims of the writer in the passage?

Write:

• YES if the statement agrees with the claims of the writer
• NO if the statement contradicts the claims of the writer
• NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this

24. Facebook’s Oversight Board provides completely independent review of content decisions.
25. The challenges of content moderation will likely become more significant as technology develops.
26. Most social media users prefer stricter content moderation policies.

---

PASSAGE 3 – Democratic Discourse in the Algorithmic Age: Structural Transformations of the Public Sphere

Độ khó: Hard (Band 7.0-9.0)

Thời gian đề xuất: 23-25 phút

The integration of social media into the fabric of contemporary communication has precipitated fundamental transformations in the structures through which democratic societies conduct public deliberation. Jürgen Habermas’s seminal concept of the public sphere – a domain of social life where individuals gather to discuss matters of public concern and form public opinion – provides a useful framework for analyzing these changes. However, the algorithmic mediation that characterizes social media platforms introduces dynamics that diverge significantly from the idealized coffee house discussions and literary salons that informed Habermas’s original formulation. Understanding the implications for freedom of speech requires examining how platform architectures shape discourse in ways that both enhance and constrain democratic deliberation.

The affordances of social media platforms – the possibilities for action that their design features enable or constrain – fundamentally alter the nature of public discourse. Traditional mass media operated primarily through one-to-many communication channels, with clear distinctions between content producers and passive audiences. Social media platforms, by contrast, facilitate many-to-many communication networks where every user can potentially function as both speaker and audience. This architectural shift has democratized access to public discourse, enabling what Yochai Benkler terms “networked public spheres” characterized by distributed communication among interconnected individuals rather than hierarchical dissemination from centralized sources.

Yet this apparent democratization conceals more subtle forms of structural inequality. The visibility of speech within platform ecosystems depends heavily on algorithmic amplification mechanisms that operate according to metrics often disconnected from traditional markers of democratic legitimacy such as expertise, reasoned argumentation, or public interest relevance. Research by scholars including Zeynep Tufekci has demonstrated that content likely to generate strong emotional reactions – particularly anger and moral outrage – achieves substantially greater algorithmic distribution than more measured analytical content. This virality bias systematically privileges certain forms of expression while marginalizing others, creating what might be termed “algorithmic gatekeeping” that operates through engagement metrics rather than editorial judgment.

The phenomenon of “context collapse” further complicates social media’s relationship with free expression. In traditional communication settings, individuals adjust their speech according to social context and audience composition – what we might discuss informally with close friends differs from professional conversations or public lectures. Social media platforms, however, present ambiguous and fluid contexts where audience boundaries remain unclear. A post intended for one’s immediate network might subsequently circulate to vastly different audiences with dramatically different interpretive frameworks. This contextual uncertainty can produce “chilling effects” on expression as individuals become hyperaware that their speech might be decontextualized and encounter hostile audiences, leading to increased self-censorship.

The concentration of communicative infrastructure in the hands of a small number of technology corporations raises profound questions about democratic accountability. As these platforms increasingly function as essential infrastructure for public discourse, their content policies and algorithmic systems acquire quasi-governmental power over expression. Yet unlike government institutions, these entities remain largely insulated from democratic oversight mechanisms. The private governance of platforms creates what Julie Cohen describes as “infrastructural imperialism” – the exercise of power through control over the basic structures that mediate human relationships and activities. This situation generates a fundamental tension: protecting free speech from government interference while addressing the private power that platform companies wield over public discourse.

Network effects and economies of scale in digital platforms create tendencies toward market concentration that exacerbate these concerns. The value of a social media platform to any individual user increases with the number of other users on the platform, creating powerful incentives toward consolidation around a small number of dominant services. This dynamic produces what economist Frank Pasquale calls “platform monopolies” – companies that, while perhaps not monopolistic in strict antitrust terms, exercise effective control over particular domains of digital life. The resulting lack of meaningful competition reduces user power to shape platform policies through “exit” – switching to alternative services – leaving “voice” – attempting to influence existing platforms – as the primary mechanism for user agency, though one with limited effectiveness given the vast power asymmetries involved.

The global scale of social media platforms creates unprecedented challenges for negotiating the boundaries of acceptable speech across vastly different cultural and legal contexts. The universal aspirations of platforms like Facebook to connect the entire world necessarily encounter the particularistic norms that govern expression in different societies. What constitutes legitimate political criticism in liberal democracies might be considered dangerous sedition in authoritarian regimes; satirical content acceptable in some cultural contexts could constitute grave offense in others. Platforms’ attempts to develop universal community standards inevitably reflect particular cultural perspectives – typically those of their predominantly Silicon Valley-based leadership – that may not translate effectively across global contexts. This standardization of speech norms across diverse societies represents a homogenizing force that potentially undermines cultural pluralism.

Recent scholarship has increasingly focused on the concept of “platform governance” as a distinct analytical framework for understanding these dynamics. This perspective examines how platforms establish, implement, and enforce rules that shape user behavior, recognizing these activities as forms of governance that parallel and interact with traditional state governance. Tarleton Gillespie’s work emphasizes how content moderation decisions collectively constitute a “custodianship” that shapes the boundaries of public discourse in profound ways. Similarly, Sarah Roberts’s research on “commercial content moderation” reveals the hidden labor through which platforms operationalize their policies, highlighting the situated judgments of poorly compensated workers whose decisions dramatically impact what speech circulates publicly.

The implications for freedom of speech in this algorithmically mediated environment resist simple characterization. Social media platforms have undeniably expanded opportunities for expression and created new possibilities for marginalized voices to reach public audiences. Simultaneously, the architectures through which these platforms operate introduce new forms of constraint, bias, and control that operate more subtly than traditional censorship but potentially with comparable effects on the composition of public discourse. Addressing these challenges requires moving beyond simplistic frameworks that treat freedom of speech purely as protection against government interference, developing instead more nuanced approaches that can account for the complex interplay between technological infrastructure, corporate power, algorithmic systems, and the conditions necessary for meaningful democratic deliberation. The emerging concept of “digital constitutionalism” – adapting constitutional principles to govern private platforms performing public functions – represents one attempt to develop such frameworks, though significant theoretical and practical challenges remain in translating these ideas into effective policy interventions.

Questions 27-31

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.

27. According to the passage, Habermas’s concept of the public sphere:

    • A. was specifically designed to analyze social media
    • B. provides a framework but does not fully account for algorithmic mediation
    • C. has become irrelevant in the digital age
    • D. perfectly explains modern social media dynamics

28. The term “context collapse” refers to:

    • A. the failure of social media platforms to function properly
    • B. the uncertainty about who might see and interpret social media content
    • C. the declining quality of online discussions
    • D. the merging of different social media platforms

29. According to the passage, network effects in social media lead to:

    • A. more diverse platforms serving niche audiences
    • B. increased government regulation of technology
    • C. concentration of users on a small number of dominant platforms
    • D. better user experiences across all platforms

30. The passage suggests that platform companies’ attempts to create universal community standards:

    • A. successfully respect all cultural differences
    • B. are generally welcomed by users worldwide
    • C. reflect particular cultural perspectives that may not translate globally
    • D. have eliminated conflicts over content moderation

31. The concept of “digital constitutionalism” aims to:

    • A. eliminate private social media companies entirely
    • B. apply constitutional principles to platform governance
    • C. prevent all government involvement in online speech
    • D. create a single global standard for online content

Questions 32-36

Complete each sentence with the correct ending, A-I, below.

32. Research on content virality demonstrates that
33. The concentration of platform ownership means that
34. Tarleton Gillespie’s concept of custodianship suggests that
35. Sarah Roberts’s work on commercial content moderation highlights
36. The notion of algorithmic gatekeeping indicates that

A. users have limited ability to influence platform policies through switching services.

B. emotional content receives more algorithmic distribution than analytical material.

C. platforms should be regulated as public utilities.

D. content moderation collectively shapes boundaries of public discourse.

E. visibility depends on engagement metrics rather than traditional democratic values.

F. platforms function better when owned by governments.

G. the important role of low-paid workers in implementing speech policies.

H. all social media should be banned.

I. algorithms are completely neutral and unbiased.

Questions 37-40

Answer the questions below.

Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer.

37. What term does Yochai Benkler use to describe the distributed communication systems enabled by social media?

38. What type of power do scholars suggest social media platforms exercise over expression?

39. What does Frank Pasquale call companies that control particular domains of digital life?

40. According to the passage, what force do universal content standards represent that potentially undermines cultural diversity?

---

Answer Keys – Đáp Án

PASSAGE 1: Questions 1-13

1. TRUE
2. FALSE
3. NOT GIVEN
4. TRUE
5. FALSE
6. FALSE
7. exclusive control
8. marginalized voices
9. misinformation
10. sophisticated algorithms / algorithms
11. B
12. C
13. B

PASSAGE 2: Questions 14-26

14. B
15. B
16. C
17. C
18. B
19. artificial intelligence (systems)
20. opacity
21. inconsistencies
22. jurisdictional conflicts
23. procedural justice
24. NOT GIVEN
25. YES
26. NOT GIVEN

PASSAGE 3: Questions 27-40

27. B
28. B
29. C
30. C
31. B
32. B
33. A
34. D
35. G
36. E
37. networked public spheres
38. quasi-governmental power
39. platform monopolies
40. homogenizing force / standardization

---

Giải Thích Đáp Án Chi Tiết

Passage 1 – Giải Thích

Câu 1: TRUE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: social media platforms, existed, more than twenty years
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 1, dòng 1-2
• Giải thích: Bài đọc nói “In the past two decades” (trong hai thập kỷ qua), tức là hơn 20 năm. Đáp án TRUE vì thông tin khớp với câu hỏi.

Câu 2: FALSE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: before social media, ordinary people, easy access, large audiences
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 2-4
• Giải thích: Bài viết nói “Ordinary citizens had limited channels” và “significant barriers to entry”, điều này mâu thuẫn với “easy access” trong câu hỏi. Đáp án FALSE.

Câu 3: NOT GIVEN

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: Arab Spring, entirely organized, social media
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 6-8
• Giải thích: Bài chỉ nói protesters “used” Twitter và Facebook để tổ chức biểu tình, không nói “entirely organized” (hoàn toàn tổ chức) qua mạng xã hội. Không đủ thông tin để xác định.

Câu 4: TRUE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: rare medical conditions, connect with others
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 3-4
• Giải thích: Bài viết đề cập “patients with rare diseases find support networks”, khớp chính xác với ý của câu hỏi.

Câu 5: FALSE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: all false information, reaches fewer people, factual corrections
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng 2-3
• Giải thích: Bài nói “False claims can spread rapidly, sometimes reaching more people than factual corrections” – điều ngược lại với câu hỏi nói “ALL false information reaches fewer people”.

Câu 6: FALSE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: algorithms, designed, promote, most truthful content
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 2-4
• Giải thích: Bài viết nói algorithms ưu tiên “content based on engagement metrics” và “emotionally charged or controversial material”, không phải “most truthful content”.

Câu 7: exclusive control

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: traditional media outlets, newspapers, television
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 1
• Giải thích: Câu đầu tiên đoạn 2 nói “traditional media outlets…held exclusive control over public information dissemination”.

Câu 8: marginalized voices

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: ethnic minorities, communicate, without traditional media
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 3-5
• Giải thích: “This transformation has enabled marginalized voices – including ethnic minorities…” – cụm “marginalized voices” bao gồm ethnic minorities.

Câu 9: misinformation

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: amount of content, identify, reliable information
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng 1-2
• Giải thích: “The sheer volume of information…makes it difficult for users to distinguish between credible sources and misinformation.”

Câu 10: sophisticated algorithms / algorithms

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: decide, which content appears, users’ feeds
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 1-2
• Giải thích: “Social media platforms employ sophisticated algorithms that prioritize content” – cả hai đáp án đều chấp nhận được.

Câu 11: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Giải thích: Đoạn 2 nói rõ hệ thống truyền thống “effectively limiting freedom of speech to those with access to traditional media platforms”, tương ứng với đáp án B.

Câu 12: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Giải thích: Đoạn 6 giải thích algorithms ưu tiên “content based on engagement metrics such as likes, shares, and comments”, khớp với đáp án C.

Câu 13: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Giải thích: Đoạn 7 nói về “conflicting legal requirements” và các nước có “vastly different legal frameworks”, tương ứng với đáp án B về việc xử lý các tiêu chuẩn pháp lý khác nhau.

Passage 2 – Giải Thích

Câu 14: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 1, câu 2
• Giải thích: “They are private companies…yet they function as de facto public squares” – đây chính là sự nghịch lý được mô tả, khớp với đáp án B.

Câu 15: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 4-6
• Giải thích: Rohingya genocide được đưa ra như ví dụ về “potential consequences when platforms fail to moderate dangerous content effectively”, minh họa cho nguy hiểm của nội dung không được kiểm duyệt.

Câu 16: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, câu 1-2
• Giải thích: “Critics…contend that these policies can stifle legitimate expression” – tức là làm im lặng những tiếng nói hợp pháp, khớp với đáp án C.

Câu 17: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 7, dòng 2-4
• Giải thích: Digital Services Act “requires greater transparency in moderation decisions and gives users stronger rights”, tương ứng với đáp án C.

Câu 18: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng 1-2
• Giải thích: “Procedural justice approaches…focus…on ensuring fair, transparent, and consistent processes”, khớp chính xác với đáp án B.

Câu 19: artificial intelligence (systems)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 2
• Giải thích: “Employ thousands of human moderators and invest heavily in artificial intelligence systems.”

Câu 20: opacity

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, câu 1
• Giải thích: “The opacity of content moderation processes compounds these concerns” – opacity (sự mờ đục, không minh bạch) là từ khóa.

Câu 21: inconsistencies

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng 4-5
• Giải thích: “Research has revealed significant inconsistencies in how identical content is treated.”

Câu 22: jurisdictional conflicts

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, câu 1
• Giải thích: “The problem is further complicated by jurisdictional conflicts between different national legal frameworks.”

Câu 23: procedural justice

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, câu 1
• Giải thích: “Some scholars advocate for procedural justice approaches.”

Câu 24: NOT GIVEN

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Giải thích: Đoạn 8 đề cập Oversight Board nhưng chỉ nói “critics question whether this structure provides truly independent oversight” – tác giả không đưa ra nhận định rõ ràng của riêng mình.

Câu 25: YES

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9, dòng 2-3
• Giải thích: “As social media platforms continue to evolve…these debates will likely intensify” – tác giả rõ ràng khẳng định thách thức sẽ gia tăng.

Câu 26: NOT GIVEN

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Giải thích: Bài viết không đề cập đến sở thích của đa số người dùng về mức độ kiểm duyệt nội dung.

Passage 3 – Giải Thích

Câu 27: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 1, dòng 2-5
• Giải thích: Bài viết nói Habermas “provides a useful framework” nhưng “algorithmic mediation…introduces dynamics that diverge significantly” – tức là cung cấp framework nhưng không giải thích đầy đủ sự trung gian của thuật toán.

Câu 28: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 1-4
• Giải thích: Context collapse là hiện tượng “audience boundaries remain unclear” và “speech might be decontextualized and encounter hostile audiences” – sự không chắc chắn về ai có thể xem và diễn giải nội dung.

Câu 29: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 1-3
• Giải thích: “Network effects…create tendencies toward market concentration” và “powerful incentives toward consolidation around a small number of dominant services.”

Câu 30: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 7, dòng 4-6
• Giải thích: “Platforms’ attempts to develop universal community standards inevitably reflect particular cultural perspectives…that may not translate effectively across global contexts.”

Câu 31: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9, dòng cuối
• Giải thích: “‘Digital constitutionalism’ – adapting constitutional principles to govern private platforms performing public functions.”

Câu 32: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Sentence Endings
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 4-6
• Giải thích: “Research…has demonstrated that content likely to generate strong emotional reactions…achieves substantially greater algorithmic distribution.”

Câu 33: A

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Sentence Endings
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 4-6
• Giải thích: “The resulting lack of meaningful competition reduces user power to shape platform policies through exit – switching to alternative services.”

Câu 34: D

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Sentence Endings
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng 2-3
• Giải thích: “Gillespie’s work emphasizes how content moderation decisions collectively constitute a custodianship that shapes the boundaries of public discourse.”

Câu 35: G

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Sentence Endings
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng 4-5
• Giải thích: “Sarah Roberts’s research…reveals the hidden labor through which platforms operationalize their policies, highlighting the situated judgments of poorly compensated workers.”

Câu 36: E

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Sentence Endings
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 1-3
• Giải thích: “Visibility of speech…depends heavily on algorithmic amplification mechanisms that operate according to metrics often disconnected from traditional markers of democratic legitimacy.”

Câu 37: networked public spheres

• Dạng câu hỏi: Short-answer Question
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 5-6
• Giải thích: “What Yochai Benkler terms ‘networked public spheres’.”

Câu 38: quasi-governmental power

• Dạng câu hỏi: Short-answer Question
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng 2-3
• Giải thích: “Their content policies and algorithmic systems acquire quasi-governmental power over expression.”

Câu 39: platform monopolies

• Dạng câu hỏi: Short-answer Question
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 4
• Giải thích: “What economist Frank Pasquale calls ‘platform monopolies’.”

Câu 40: homogenizing force / standardization

• Dạng câu hỏi: Short-answer Question
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 7, dòng cuối
• Giải thích: “This standardization of speech norms…represents a homogenizing force that potentially undermines cultural pluralism” – cả hai đáp án đều được chấp nhận.

---

Từ Vựng Quan Trọng Theo Passage

Passage 1 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
integral	adj	/ˈɪntɪɡrəl/	không thể thiếu, thiết yếu	integral components of daily life	integral part of, integral to
engage in	phrasal verb	/ɪnˈɡeɪdʒ ɪn/	tham gia vào	engage in public discourse	engage in discussion/debate/activity
dissemination	n	/dɪˌsemɪˈneɪʃn/	sự phổ biến, phát tán	information dissemination	information dissemination, news dissemination
barriers to entry	phrase	/ˈbæriəz tuː ˈentri/	rào cản gia nhập	significant barriers to entry	create barriers to entry, remove barriers
democratized	v	/dɪˈmɒkrətaɪzd/	dân chủ hóa	dramatically democratized the process	democratize access, democratize information
gatekeepers	n	/ˈɡeɪtkiːpəz/	người kiểm soát cổng thông tin	traditional gatekeepers	media gatekeepers, gatekeepers of information
marginalized voices	phrase	/ˈmɑːdʒɪnəlaɪzd ˈvɔɪsɪz/	những tiếng nói bị gạt ra lề	enabled marginalized voices	amplify marginalized voices, marginalized communities
unprecedented	adj	/ʌnˈpresɪdentɪd/	chưa từng có	unprecedented connectivity	unprecedented access/opportunity/scale
misinformation	n	/ˌmɪsɪnfəˈmeɪʃn/	thông tin sai lệch	spread misinformation	combat misinformation, viral misinformation
algorithmic curation	phrase	/ˌælɡəˈrɪðmɪk kjʊəˈreɪʃn/	sự chọn lọc theo thuật toán	algorithmic curation of content	content curation, algorithmic filtering
echo chambers	phrase	/ˈekəʊ ˈtʃeɪmbəz/	buồng vang (hiện tượng chỉ tiếp nhận quan điểm tương tự)	create echo chambers	trapped in echo chambers, political echo chambers
conflicting	adj	/kənˈflɪktɪŋ/	mâu thuẫn, xung đột	conflicting legal requirements	conflicting interests/views/demands

Passage 2 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
contentious	adj	/kənˈtenʃəs/	gây tranh cãi	contentious debates	contentious issue/topic/debate
de facto	adj/adv	/deɪ ˈfæktəʊ/	trên thực tế	de facto public squares	de facto standard/leader/government
corporate autonomy	phrase	/ˈkɔːpərət ɔːˈtɒnəmi/	quyền tự chủ của doanh nghiệp	balance between corporate autonomy	corporate governance, corporate responsibility
content moderation	phrase	/ˈkɒntent ˌmɒdəˈreɪʃn/	kiểm duyệt nội dung	content moderation policies	content moderation systems/practices
foment division	phrase	/fəʊˈment dɪˈvɪʒn/	kích động chia rẽ	used to foment division	foment unrest/discord/hatred
stifle	v	/ˈstaɪfl/	kìm hãm, dập tắt	stifle legitimate expression	stifle creativity/dissent/innovation
subjective biases	phrase	/səbˈdʒektɪv ˈbaɪəsɪz/	thiên kiến chủ quan	reflect subjective biases	unconscious bias, cognitive bias
opacity	n	/əʊˈpæsəti/	sự mờ đục, thiếu minh bạch	opacity of content moderation	lack of transparency, opacity in decision-making
appeal	v/n	/əˈpiːl/	kháng cáo, kêu gọi xem xét lại	appeal moderation decisions	file an appeal, appeal process
inconsistencies	n	/ˌɪnkənˈsɪstənsiz/	sự không nhất quán	significant inconsistencies	inconsistency in application/treatment
jurisdictional conflicts	phrase	/ˌdʒʊərɪsˈdɪkʃənl ˈkɒnflɪkts/	xung đột thẩm quyền	jurisdictional conflicts between frameworks	jurisdictional issues/disputes
suppressing speech	phrase	/səˈpresɪŋ spiːtʃ/	đàn áp ngôn luận	mean suppressing speech	suppress dissent/opposition/criticism
procedural justice	phrase	/prəˈsiːdʒərəl ˈdʒʌstɪs/	công lý thủ tục	procedural justice approaches	procedural fairness, procedural rights
appeals mechanisms	phrase	/əˈpiːlz ˈmekənɪzəmz/	cơ chế kháng cáo	robust appeals mechanisms	appeals process, dispute resolution mechanism
generative artificial intelligence	phrase	/ˈdʒenərətɪv ˌɑːtɪfɪʃl ɪnˈtelɪdʒəns/	trí tuệ nhân tạo sinh tạo	technologies like generative AI	AI systems, AI applications

Passage 3 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
precipitated	v	/prɪˈsɪpɪteɪtɪd/	gây ra, làm xúc tác	has precipitated transformations	precipitate a crisis/change/conflict
public sphere	phrase	/ˈpʌblɪk sfɪə/	không gian công cộng	concept of the public sphere	public discourse, public space
algorithmic mediation	phrase	/ˌælɡəˈrɪðmɪk ˌmiːdiˈeɪʃn/	sự trung gian qua thuật toán	algorithmic mediation that characterizes	algorithmic filtering, algorithmic control
democratic deliberation	phrase	/ˌdeməˈkrætɪk dɪˌlɪbəˈreɪʃn/	thảo luận dân chủ	constrain democratic deliberation	deliberative democracy, public deliberation
affordances	n	/əˈfɔːdənsɪz/	khả năng cho phép	affordances of social media platforms	technological affordances, platform affordances
architectural shift	phrase	/ˌɑːkɪˈtektʃərəl ʃɪft/	sự thay đổi về cấu trúc	this architectural shift	architectural design, structural transformation
structural inequality	phrase	/ˈstrʌktʃərəl ˌɪnɪˈkwɒləti/	bất bình đẳng cấu trúc	subtle forms of structural inequality	systemic inequality, structural discrimination
amplification mechanisms	phrase	/ˌæmplɪfɪˈkeɪʃn ˈmekənɪzəmz/	cơ chế khuếch đại	algorithmic amplification mechanisms	signal amplification, content amplification
virality bias	phrase	/vaɪˈræləti ˈbaɪəs/	thiên lệch về khả năng lan truyền	this virality bias	viral content, viral spread
context collapse	phrase	/ˈkɒntekst kəˈlæps/	sự sụp đổ ngữ cảnh	phenomenon of context collapse	contextual boundaries, context-dependent
chilling effects	phrase	/ˈtʃɪlɪŋ ɪˈfekts/	hiệu ứng làm lạnh (tự kiểm duyệt)	produce chilling effects on expression	chilling effect on speech/dissent
quasi-governmental	adj	/ˈkweɪzaɪ ˌɡʌvənˈmentl/	bán chính phủ	acquire quasi-governmental power	quasi-public, quasi-official
private governance	phrase	/ˈpraɪvət ˈɡʌvənəns/	quản trị tư nhân	private governance of platforms	corporate governance, platform governance
infrastructural imperialism	phrase	/ˌɪnfrəˈstrʌktʃərəl ɪmˈpɪəriəlɪzəm/	chủ nghĩa đế quốc cơ sở hạ tầng	infrastructural imperialism	digital imperialism, infrastructural power
network effects	phrase	/ˈnetwɜːk ɪˈfekts/	hiệu ứng mạng lưới	network effects and economies of scale	network externalities, network value
platform monopolies	phrase	/ˈplætfɔːm məˈnɒpəliz/	độc quyền nền tảng	platform monopolies that exercise control	monopolistic practices, monopoly power
particularistic norms	phrase	/pəˌtɪkjələˈrɪstɪk nɔːmz/	chuẩn mực đặc thù	encounter particularistic norms	cultural norms, social norms
custodianship	n	/kʌˈstəʊdiənʃɪp/	quyền giám hộ, trông coi	constitute a custodianship	custodian of, guardianship
digital constitutionalism	phrase	/ˈdɪdʒɪtl ˌkɒnstɪˈtjuːʃənəlɪzəm/	chủ nghĩa lập hiến số	concept of digital constitutionalism	constitutional principles, constitutional rights

---

Kết Bài

Chủ đề về “What are the implications of social media for freedom of speech?” là một trong những đề tài phức tạp và thời sự nhất trong IELTS Reading hiện nay. Qua bộ đề thi mẫu này, bạn đã được luyện tập với ba passages có độ khó tăng dần, từ mức Easy giúp làm quen với chủ đề, đến Medium với yêu cầu hiểu sâu hơn về các khía cạnh kiểm duyệt nội dung, và cuối cùng là Hard với những phân tích học thuật về cấu trúc quyền lực trong thời đại thuật toán.

Ba passages này đã cung cấp đầy đủ 40 câu hỏi với 7 dạng bài khác nhau – tất cả được thiết kế theo đúng format của đề thi IELTS thực tế. Đáp án chi tiết kèm giải thích cụ thể sẽ giúp bạn không chỉ biết câu trả lời đúng mà còn hiểu được cách xác định thông tin trong bài, kỹ thuật paraphrase, và chiến lược làm bài cho từng dạng câu hỏi.

Phần từ vựng được tổng hợp theo từng passage cung cấp cho bạn kho từ vựng phong phú về chủ đề công nghệ, truyền thông và xã hội – những từ vựng không chỉ hữu ích cho bài thi Reading mà còn có thể áp dụng cho Writing Task 2 và Speaking Part 3 khi gặp các chủ đề liên quan.

Hãy luyện tập bộ đề này trong điều kiện thi thật với thời gian 60 phút, sau đó đối chiếu đáp án và đọc kỹ phần giải thích để hiểu rõ những điểm còn yếu. Đừng quên ghi chú lại những từ vựng mới và cấu trúc câu hay để bổ sung vào vốn kiến thức của mình. Chúc bạn ôn tập hiệu quả và đạt band điểm mục tiêu trong kỳ thi IELTS sắp tới!