In recent days, a dog hunt has been on fire on various social platforms. According to the revelation, on 28 May, Ms. Xu lost her Koki Ae-Doe in the vicinity of West Shan Ae No. 1 in the Tondai district of Beijing, in return for her deep feelings with her family, and must be grateful to those who have been returned, stating that “if she is returned to the North Gate of Camp Aeji No. 49 in West Shan Aeji” a house would be in return. The news, which was broadcast by the media, sparked public opinion and members of the network said, “Leave to find the dog” and, “I am on my way”. In a few days, however, the incident produced a huge reversal: #the dog was sent to Beijing's property owners to speak out #: the dog was sent home with thanks, the printing shop was tumbled into a delivery house, causing a strong reaction from public opinion and an escalation of negative sentiment.
From the analysis of the web-based surveillance software Eagle-Early Reader Network, the heat trend in the network is not clear from the beginning of the dog-scathing event, but on 3 June there was a sudden and dramatic change in the heat of the network, which is inextricably linked to the huge contrasts in the attitude of the dog-scathing owner.
On May 28th, Ms. Tsui of Beijing posted the "Doggy Search" message, and whoever finds a dog for herself, sends a room as a thank-you note.
According to the daily consumer newspaper, Ms. Xu said that, because of the urgency of the situation, a dog-searching revelation had been posted that anyone who found a dog would send a room in West Shan Ai as a way of thanking him, which was not one of the legends. According to a query by a journalist from Wuhan, the house in the area, according to Ms. Xu, is flat at around 56,000, meaning that the reward is at least several million. The dog-scathing news has spread rapidly from media platforms and short video platforms, and netizens have expressed their desire to go to Beijing to help find a dog for a new house.
#In response to the dog owner's search house #West Shan Ai's small property office said that the throwing of the dog was real and that property staff said they were not aware of the gift of the house in return. The staff of the Building's Sale Office stated that they had also heard of the matter and that the house referred to in the dog's notice was not a normal merchandise house, but rather a limited room, so there was a limitation on the property rights of the house, “not to say that it can be given to anyone, nor that it can be transferred to whom it is intended”.
At the same time, informed sources have revealed that Ms. Xu ' s house is not a general commodity house, but rather a limited one, with limited housing prices (sold to low- and middle-income families below market prices), a limited condom type (under 90 square feet), which is subject to certain restrictions on property rights in accordance with the Beijing City policy. So, Ms. Xu's gift is nothing but a check and cannot be convertible. The citizens who found the dog were then paid $20,000.
On 2 June, Ms. Xu and her husband, who posted the dog search announcement, responded that the “dog search house” was printed in the wrong print shop. The print shop operators also admitted their fault. Ms. Xu denied that citizens who found dogs were paid $20,000 and claimed that information had been tampered with. Media coverage through the network of observers, news reports, China News Network, emergency calls, the New Kyoto newspaper, China Newsweek, etc., used its fans ' influence to spread the Internet rapidly and the heat of the network rose rapidly.
Public opinion has shown a strong negative condemnation of the back and back of the dog-carrying incident, with 58 per cent of Internet users expressing a negative view from the analysis of the Eagle-Eyster reading software, and some of them saying that the dog owner attributed responsibility to the printing shop was incredible, unconvincing, and beyond the customary perception: “Is there only a few words that the dog owner would not see? Did you not find it when you were looking for the dog's revelation?" How does a print shop print out not look? I don't believe it." It has also risen to the level of the dog-loving community, through which public opinion has become sarcastic. In addition, some netizens raised the question of whether a reward announcement had some legal effect. Counsel @Hon Bear states that under normal circumstances reward notices have the force of law and a person who has completed a particular act may request payment of the reward. In the event of a substantial misunderstanding, the reward person may apply to the court for annulment, but is compensable if the other party has suffered damage as a result of its fault.
Looking at the beginning and end of the dog-carrying incident, the dog owner drew public attention to the loss of his own pets, and, with media support, the reaction of the dog owner to the act of looking at the house, claiming that it was a printing error, the event ended with the dog owner recovering the lost pets, the printing shop owner admitting fault, the matter was taken lightly, leaving to the public feelings of deception and the anger of public opinion, and who was the beneficiary of the incident? It is worth considering and exploring.