Fortnite is bigger than PUBG - WAN Show Mar. 9 2018

**Drone Crashes, Sets Fire to Grassland Area**

In a bizarre incident, a drone crashed and caught fire in Kendrick Park, setting off concerns about safety and regulations surrounding drone usage. The pilot was identified and charged with starting a forest fire, highlighting the need for stricter laws and regulations regarding drone flying near wildfires.

Lawmakers are now pushing to criminalize drone flying in wildfire areas, aiming to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. This move is seen as a necessary step to ensure public safety, particularly when it comes to protecting people, animals, vehicles, and wildlife from potential harm caused by drones.

However, there is some confusion surrounding the proposed laws. A spokesperson for the forest service clarifies that flying a drone in the forest is legal as long as it doesn't take off in a wilderness area and there are no nearby wildfires. This raises questions about whether the proposed laws would effectively prevent such incidents from occurring.

Critics argue that the approach may not be entirely effective, as individuals or organizations could still find ways to circumvent the regulations. Moreover, there is concern that the implementation of these laws might lead to a patchwork system, where different areas have varying rules and regulations regarding drone usage.

** blocking adult content**

Rhode Island is proposing a bill that would require internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to sexual content. The proposal comes with an added twist – those who want to opt-out of the filter would have to pay a one-time fee of $20, which would be allocated to fund anti-trafficking initiatives.

The primary motivation behind this proposal is not primarily driven by concerns about child pornography or protecting minors from explicit content. Instead, it appears that the state aims to generate revenue through these fees. The filters for illegal content, including child pornography, would also be deactivated if an individual pays the fee.

This approach has raised eyebrows among critics, who argue that it ignores the moral implications of blocking access to certain types of content altogether. Moreover, the registry system for individuals opting-out of the filter appears confusing and cumbersome, with no clear indication of how it would work in practice.

Critics also point out that this proposal might not effectively address the root causes of human trafficking and exploitation in the pornography industry. According to some estimates, people can become victims of human trafficking by signing contracts without fully understanding them, often due to poor language skills or lack of knowledge about local laws.

**Conclusion**

The proposed bill has sparked intense debate and raised questions about the effectiveness and morality of censorship measures. While the intention behind the proposal might be laudable – to combat exploitation and support anti-trafficking initiatives – critics argue that it is a misguided approach. The complexity of the issue demands a more nuanced solution, one that addresses the root causes of human trafficking and exploitation while also respecting individual freedoms.

The situation highlights the challenges of regulating digital content and online activities. As technology continues to evolve, it becomes increasingly difficult for lawmakers to keep pace with emerging issues. The debate surrounding this proposal serves as a reminder of the need for careful consideration and nuanced discussion when addressing complex societal concerns.