The incidents of Sengdu dog attacks continue to cause concern. While people are following developments, rumours are spreading. There are rumours that the father of the little girl and the owner of the dog are relatives, or even that the owner of the dog is the grandfather of the little girl, and that such rumors are spreading on various platforms. The rumours are that the little girl first hit the dog with his hand, and that hemorrhaging the foot of the dog led to the dog bite. It was also alleged that the dog owner had been cut by the parents of the child, and that those who had nothing to do with it had been known as the dog owner for having had a dog of the same kind as the bite.
Some of these rumours have come to an end and rely on the minds of cyber-friends; others have the “truth” and the sound of it, as if it were at the scene at the time of the events, closer to the facts themselves than the investigation team, and have led to confusion.
As a result, the parties were busy trying to resolve the matter in a timely manner: the client ' s lawyer claimed that the two families were unknown. The streets are full of lies. Police officers in Chengdu Network are making rumours and making short video alerts is not credible. It's like, "Burn a lie and break a leg."
After the hotspot events, it seems that such rumours can always find roots in the soil and that they can be heard. As was the case with the tragic loss of the beach connection of a small Shanghai girl during the previous period, some of the false rumours have sparked much debate. As a result of the quick disposition of the parties concerned, the microblogging manager reported that during the inspection, the station had found that individual users had disseminated false information and that a small number of users had issued extremist statements against the search and rescue efforts, such as physical attacks and insults, and had taken them seriously.
The rumours of the typhus of June and the return to the dog accident, in which the victim had been injured and the child was still lying in ICU for medical treatment, were spreading as if it were a second injury, and members of the Internet saw rumours of attacks on the victim ' s family. Not to mention that the other dog owners, who were “ lying on the gun” because of the incident, belonged to people sitting in their homes and coming up from the sky.
It has been argued that the spread of such rumours is prone to confrontation, and that they are all networkers concerned with developments, with the same starting point, and ultimately because they believe that they are willing to believe in each other, even verbally.
There are three tigers who speak too many, and there are Internet friends who take these rumours as true and think that's what's going on. We might as well let these rumours fly for a while, so we don't rush to re-approve the narratives of the “one-click three-way” and think that silence is acquiescence. It is believed that the truth will come to light as the work of the team continues.
Such rumours should also be addressed as soon as possible by the relevant departments and platforms in order to prevent the spread of the rumours and, in turn, to respond to the concerns of the netizens. In addition, the investigation team could issue a timely update to prevent more Internet users from covering, banning, or reminding in the relevant blog that rumours have been published by the authorities.
At the same time, we should face up to the fact that not all discussions are rumours. During the incident, some netizens were concerned about the fate of the post-pension money and the dog owner ' s compensation, especially those who had already contributed, and wanted to know that the costs and details were inexhaustible, and that normal discussions among the netizens were reasonable. In the case of such claims, the parties and the platform could, in due course, disclose the whereabouts of the money and respond to concerns.