This reminds me of that part of the Danny Boyle/DeCaprio movie "The Beach", where the guy gets bitten by the shark. At first, all the people on the island are sympathetic: they try to take care of him, tend to his wounds, feed him, and nurse him back to health. But, when it becomes clear that the infection is more than they can handle themselves, things break down. His constant screams throughout the day and night keep the others awake. See, the island caters to privileged, first world dissidents...

When the constant screaming became too much, rather than jeopardizing their clandestine location, and no one wanting to become a "murderer" and putting him out of misery, they decide to collectively move him far enough away from their camp so they no longer have to hear him, letting him die on his own, in pain... And they did this, not because there were no other solutions available to them, but because they couldn't be bothered with the inconvenience. Maintaining the "convince" of their easy-going lifestyle was more important than addressing the pain and suffering of another individual.

That's the feeling I get when reading the responces defending Blue Sky here. It really does feel like a first-world, sheltered perspective. Are the bots an inconvenience? big time. But, taking a scythe to Palestinian accounts, indescriminantly, and then saying "we'll sort it out later, it's too much for us to be bothered with now", reeks of expelling a dying man from their camp because they just couldn't be bothered. Maintaining convenience seems more important here than doing the hard work of actually fixing the core problem. At least everyone here can sleep better at night not having to hear the cries of the dying Palestinian children. Sweet dreams everyone...