After playing the real machine game for more than a year (Breaking Bad Jack?), he "disobeyed" and launched a missile, just because he saw the little girl dancing the hula hoop, and a clear stream reached his heart. He didn't even know the little girl's name, but a brief observation was enough to initiate a request for a reassessment of the damage report. In the conference room, the barrage commenter regarded as the female minister of the "Notre Dame Bitch". When asked if she was willing to risk the lives of dozens of people, including the child, to save the little girl, she categorically said that she was willing, and she was quite capable. PR is astute to point out that killing a little civilian girl because of their drone operation will cause a bigger political upheaval among pre-YouTube voters than killing dozens of civilians in war zone countries because of a suicide attack by a brutal terrorist group. storm. Then everyone was cowardly, started to play football, reported to the top, and brought in more relevant parties to participate in decision-making.
In recent days, the Dallas police attack in the United States was caused by two incidents of killing black people by police officers, triggering protests across the country. The girlfriend of one of the black victims, who live-streamed images of her boyfriend's killing and her reaction on Facebook, went viral, no doubt fueling protests across the country, during which a veteran was killed during protests in Dallas. Killed five police officers, wounded several others, and was killed (actually by an explosion) with robotic anti-terrorist equipment. And the video of the white-hater madman shooting a police officer like an execution went viral on social media.
Mark Zuckerberg praised the live broadcast for allowing people to see the truth that was previously overlooked more clearly (after checking the original text on his Facebook and modifying it). But can such live video from non-professionals really reflect the truth? Will it arouse the nerves of the public to further deepen the social gap? Where is our empathy when people are filming and watching these kinds of videos? (The choice between shooting first or saving people first in news ethics. Some comments on Weibo posted a video and then analyzed the gunman's position in the tone of an e-sports host, praising his psychological quality)
So the eye on the sky may not be talking about drones, or cameras all over the street, and certainly not mobile phone lenses. There is a god when you raise your head three feet, is that what you mean? Can live streaming solve Shen Du’s moral dilemma?
(Modification. From the attacker's situation room, to the victim, to the spectator, what do these shifts mean?)
View more about Eye in the Sky reviews
