5 ms·

So, will the truth be known widely or will the broader population remember only the drone accusation? Cynic in me thinks this was deliberately suggested to make

by cm3 11y ago

So, will the truth be known widely or will the broader population remember only the drone accusation? Cynic in me thinks this was deliberately suggested to make passing some drone laws easier.

Bulk70 11y ago
It's been in a prominent position on the front page of BBC news all morning - not sure how much more exposure you can give it really?
- cm3 11y ago
  It's that people will only remember the sensationalist news. That's why it must be a requirement to only report what is factually proven or otherwise just say "planed had to land, reason unknown".
  - jblok 11y ago
    That's a problem with people and their memory, not the news outlet. The headline at the moment literally says it was unlikely to be a drone, but that still doesn't rule it out completely. Following your rules, that wouldn't make it as a story because it isn't factually proven.
    - cm3 11y ago
      News should not report stuff they don't know is true. Otherwise it's just reddit on TV and we wouldn't need the profession called journalism.
      - untog 11y ago
        That's a nice idea, but would never work in reality. People want to know things. When an explosion happens people are going to watch the TV network with sources that can confirm off the record what happened, even though they don't "know it is true". Unless you're going to pass a law requiring all news organizations to behave this way (and when did government control of news ever go bad?) it's never going to happen.
        cm3 11y ago
        It's not the government who should control news, but just as a journalist may not be put behind bars for reporting uncomfortable facts, news shall not present anything they're not sure of. I'd like to think the solution is simple, require a license before you can call yourself a news agency and take it away after three unfounded statements. There's room for fun news that reports on some famous guy's divorce, but it should be clearly labeled as speculative rumors. So, if you don't have a news license, you can still print papers and magazine and have tv shows, but like on cigarette packages, there will always be a label visible at all times: Speculative Infotainment. Any controlling body must consist of a healthy mix of representatives and no financial persuasion may be allowed. In essence it's like reading a book and knowing it's fiction, not a report, and most news reporting is the same as information passed around citizens as hearsay. Moreover, when I look at the way some tv hosts report information, it's more acting than should be allowed for something called news. There are probably only 1000 or 2000 active journalists today. Most just repeat, reprint, what they got fed by someone else. In some countried here are investigative journalists who have their own TV shows on (partly) publicly funded TV. What's most important is that before blindly believing a report, one is well served to compare with other agencies who are funded by an opposing interest group. What one might misrepresent can be spelled out clearly in some other place. Relying on a single source for news is like trusting the computer clock in a distributed system.
        untog 11y ago
        > I'd like to think the solution is simple, require a license before you can call yourself a news agency Is also something that has not worked very well, historically speaking. Who is going to give out those licenses? Government. Who does the news agency report on? Government.
        cm3 11y ago
        Not the government alone, no. At some point we need to learn how to make such controlling bodies work, and I'd like to think there are already such control orgs which have proven to work.
        11y ago
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Honestly, Reddit is much better than mainstream news. On Reddit when someone says something like this, someone else will be quick to call bullshit. The same is true for Hacker News btw.
        brokenmachine 11y ago
        This is exactly right. All I see now in mainstream news is corruption and undisclosed agendas, and just a general insult to intelligence. When mainstream news is reporting stories about reality TV and sports "stars" from the same network, you know for sure it's all a big charade to sell advertising. Of course, reddit has it's own problems as a source of truth... But there's always /r/thathappened to set us straight.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      > That's a problem with people and their memory, not the news outlet. Arsenic being poisonous is in fact a problem with peoples' bodies not being able to handle it. And yet putting it in food and selling to people is not something you're allowed to. The "problem with people and their memory" here is a human universal, something thay can't do much about, so asking them to "just be smarter" is not a practical approach. > The headline at the moment literally says it was unlikely to be a drone, but that still doesn't rule it out completely. Following your rules, that wouldn't make it as a story because it isn't factually proven. And it shouldn't. Because on what basis does this story (and previous ones) promote drones to attention? It could be a bird. Or an UAV. Or a piece of plane falling off. Or someone playing with a spud gun. Or a turtle[0]. Or something else entirely. By saying "it's unlikely it was a drone" they're already framing the discussion. [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11588384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11588384
jblok 11y ago
The broader population will only remember the drone accusation. A drone maybe hitting a plane is far more interesting and sensationalist than a drone not hitting a plane. There are thousands of instances every day where drones don't hit planes. That's just how the human psyche/news in general works. You can't accuse the BBC of not reporting the updated news. Some shadier outlets might choose not to however.
- cm3 11y ago
  I do blame news outlets going for sensational news rather than factual statements. This is real journalism: "Flight X234 had to emergency land due to a collision with an unidentified object right after takeoff. It is not unusual to hit birds or other objects, but at at this time we don't know what it was." This is pimping news for money: "OMG, terrorist drone bought at 7/11 was navigated by attackers into plane to kill citizens." Why is libel misused to silence people, while so-called journalists can lie?
  - notahacker 11y ago
    A pilot landed an aircraft after a collision with an object he believed to be a drone, following four confirmed incidents of drone near misses at UK airports in recent months. Media reported the incontrovertible fact of the aircraft landing and the pilot's presumably good-faith belief it was a drone. The BBC even put 'drone' in inverted commas in their original headline. You are seriously arguing that this amounts to "lies" and should be suppressed?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- themartorana 11y ago
  This is the identical thing that will make adoption of self-driving cars difficult on a broad scale. Thousands of human-caused accidents and deaths, but the first person to die in a self-driving car (even if it's not that car's fault) will be devastating to rollout.
  - 11y ago
eumoria 11y ago
No one should be able to fly a drone anywhere near an airport. If the law doesn't exist it should anyway. This also isn't the first time this has happened / been claimed to happen.
- cm3 11y ago
  My objection is that the first explanation was that it's a drone. It's fear mongering, like accusing citizens from a specific settlement as likely perpetrators.
- sathackr 11y ago
  What if they have clearance from the airport and/or control tower?
  - rorykoehler 11y ago
    What size drones are we talking about here?
    - Ao7bei3s 11y ago
      Whatever the airport and/or tower cleared. As long as they know, what difference does it make?
- phicoh 11y ago
  The problem I see in The Netherlands is that rules prohibit flying close the airports already for a very long time. People violate those rules. New regulation is introduced to make the rules more strict. It doesn't affect me personally at the moment, but many other types of model flying become very hard. And the people violating the rules, mostly don't know them anyhow, so keep violating the rules.
- lsaferite 11y ago
  Laws already exist around flying R/C aircraft. They already have ceiling limits. They already have airspace limits. I live in the US, but the UK has essentially the same laws. In the US they already have registration requirements. "Drones" are the new UFOs at this point.
spatulan 11y ago
That's more conspiracy theorist, than cynic.
- cm3 11y ago
  That's one explanation, but I don't believe in stuff, so it doesn't apply. I've seen time and again how opinions are made via complicated and hidden propaganda. Most of it is subtle and not in your face and the world trained me to be a skeptic, is all.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >conspiracy theorist My favorite conspiracy theory is that the idea of conspiracy theories was subject to a multiple decade long attack by certain government groups to make conspiracy theory equate in popular culture to crack pot theory. Governments benefits when theories like the CIA bringing in drugs or the military doing non-consensual human experimentation on soldiers are classified under the same moniker as the theory that lizard people control the government and aliens exist but the governments of the world cover for them. But that is just a conspiracy theory.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  It's not a conspiracy theory to think that laws are propagandized by tickling authoritarian tendencies. Planes hit birds because they intersect with flocks of birds, because birds have nearly 100% overlap in altitude with all phases of operation of airliners, over land and over water, and because there are hundreds of billions of birds. To calculate the odds of hitting a drone, you have to divide the odds of a bird strike by population, altitude overlap and by spatial density when a flock of birds vs a single drone is encountered. This is why betting on a drone strike is, currently, a sucker-bet. Anyone who thinks a report of a drone strike is real is way way too credulous and/or biased.
HoopleHead 11y ago
Came here to say pretty much the same thing. It's a familiar old pattern: 1: "Thing" is developed which enjoys benign use amongst small subset of geeks 2: Military discover "Thing" and develop a way to use it for evil and/or killing 3: "Thing" gains in popularity amongst general public 4: Government says. "General public can't be trusted with "Thing". Thing is capable of doing evil and/or killing people!" 5: News stories start appearing: ""Thing" could be used by 'Terrists' and 'Paedos', warns expert" 6: "Thing" restricted or outlawed —in response to "public concerns" Rinse and repeat...
- jgrahamc 11y ago
  1: "Thing" is developed which enjoys benign use amongst small subset of geeks 2: Military discover "Thing" and develop a way to use it for evil and/or killing That ordering is not correct.
  - Ao7bei3s 11y ago
    In the case of multicopters, it is.
    - madaxe_again 11y ago
      Except military UAVs tend to follow the traditional fixed-wing format rather more, as you can't fly a quadcopter halfway around the planet and keep it airborne for years. Yet.
- _puk 11y ago
  ... warns "expert" My issue with these stories, is that there generally is no go-to organisation for the new "Thing", so all the news articles end up quoting 'Jim , the self proclaimed expert on Thing"'
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    So... what would you call the AMA (http://www.modelaircraft.org/ http://www.modelaircraft.org/), these stories are generally just examples of shoddy journalism.
diginux 11y ago
The response from their Transport Minister 7 days ago seems fairly sane to me: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/drone-believed-to-have-hit-british-airways-flight-may-have-been/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/drone-believed-to...
- cm3 11y ago
  Again, the problem is the initial unfounded reporting. This is why people who have been accused of heinous crimes without proof or conclusive investigation, because the town people were looking for an easy to identify perpetrator, have a hard time later being treated the same as before the accusation. It's what stays in the minds of most people that's the harm.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
patcheudor 11y ago
I have a lot of mixed feelings about multi-rotor and hobby aircraft regulation. Part of me looks at all the idiots out there and goes: "okay, that's fair." But then it impacts responsible flyers and isn't consistent with some existing case law and even the US Constitution. In my state they've enacted a law that makes it illegal to film, then post video on YouTube from a multi-rotor and have all but made it illegal to fly them over private property without permission. Meanwhile, balloons! Balloonists can do whatever they want and no one is calling them out on the crazy irresponsible stuff they do. In fact, court cases dating back nearly 200 years supports their use of the air for all purposes. Yes, you might go "ha, ha", Patch is a funny guy, irresponsible balloonists, right!" but I'm serious. On April 17th of just this year we had a balloonist come quite literally inches away from hitting our neighbors house. Do you think anyone at the FAA even cared? Do you think it made the news? Nope. Below is a photo I snapped of the incident as I ran out the door to what I thought was going to be a pretty nasty ballooning accident. Throughout the centuries, owning a balloon has been something for the rich, for people who could afford good lawyers and build case law that favors nearly unrestricted flight by way of comparison to drone 'rules' being enacted. The problem with multi-rotors, is that any idiot without a lot of money can buy one, do something stupid, then be at the mercy of a public defender when they go to court. Since there are literally millions of people out there who can afford a multi-rotor but can't afford to defend themselves in court, the future isn't bright when it comes to being able to step out your door and fly a multi-rotor. https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12974373_1340409492639635_9128886582753965850_n.jpg?oh=96deec5ecf0e62087a563706451f0598&oe=57B5585F https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/1...
- themartorana 11y ago
  What state, and it explicitly states any video you take with a drone cannot be uploaded to the internet?
  - patcheudor 11y ago
    Idaho. Specifically any drone footage with a human who has not signed a waiver. It's a real piece of work and I've partnered with a production firm here in town and hope to have a real funny video challenge to the law sometime this summer. https://www.aclu.org/blog/first-state-laws-drones https://www.aclu.org/blog/first-state-laws-drones
pessimizer 11y ago
Everybody still thinks that Apple gathered a ton of gold while recycling iPhones. You'll be hearing about it in bars for 10 years. What scrupulous recyclers they are! iDevices are probably good for the environment. The only reason hobby helicopters are called "drones" now is because the U.S. uses drones to kill people, and people had a problem with that - so now everything is a drone. I guess the next step is to ban hobby helicopters, closing the circle.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by cm3 11y ago

So, will the truth be known widely or will the broader population remember only the drone accusation? Cynic in me thinks this was deliberately suggested to make passing some drone laws easier.

Bulk70 11y ago

It's been in a prominent position on the front page of BBC news all morning - not sure how much more exposure you can give it really?

cm3 11y ago
It's that people will only remember the sensationalist news. That's why it must be a requirement to only report what is factually proven or otherwise just say "planed had to land, reason unknown".
- jblok 11y ago
  That's a problem with people and their memory, not the news outlet. The headline at the moment literally says it was unlikely to be a drone, but that still doesn't rule it out completely. Following your rules, that wouldn't make it as a story because it isn't factually proven.
  - cm3 11y ago
    News should not report stuff they don't know is true. Otherwise it's just reddit on TV and we wouldn't need the profession called journalism.
    - untog 11y ago
      That's a nice idea, but would never work in reality. People want to know things. When an explosion happens people are going to watch the TV network with sources that can confirm off the record what happened, even though they don't "know it is true". Unless you're going to pass a law requiring all news organizations to behave this way (and when did government control of news ever go bad?) it's never going to happen.
      - cm3 11y ago
        It's not the government who should control news, but just as a journalist may not be put behind bars for reporting uncomfortable facts, news shall not present anything they're not sure of. I'd like to think the solution is simple, require a license before you can call yourself a news agency and take it away after three unfounded statements. There's room for fun news that reports on some famous guy's divorce, but it should be clearly labeled as speculative rumors. So, if you don't have a news license, you can still print papers and magazine and have tv shows, but like on cigarette packages, there will always be a label visible at all times: Speculative Infotainment. Any controlling body must consist of a healthy mix of representatives and no financial persuasion may be allowed. In essence it's like reading a book and knowing it's fiction, not a report, and most news reporting is the same as information passed around citizens as hearsay. Moreover, when I look at the way some tv hosts report information, it's more acting than should be allowed for something called news. There are probably only 1000 or 2000 active journalists today. Most just repeat, reprint, what they got fed by someone else. In some countried here are investigative journalists who have their own TV shows on (partly) publicly funded TV. What's most important is that before blindly believing a report, one is well served to compare with other agencies who are funded by an opposing interest group. What one might misrepresent can be spelled out clearly in some other place. Relying on a single source for news is like trusting the computer clock in a distributed system.
        untog 11y ago
        > I'd like to think the solution is simple, require a license before you can call yourself a news agency Is also something that has not worked very well, historically speaking. Who is going to give out those licenses? Government. Who does the news agency report on? Government.
        cm3 11y ago
        Not the government alone, no. At some point we need to learn how to make such controlling bodies work, and I'd like to think there are already such control orgs which have proven to work.
      - 11y ago
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Honestly, Reddit is much better than mainstream news. On Reddit when someone says something like this, someone else will be quick to call bullshit. The same is true for Hacker News btw.
      - brokenmachine 11y ago
        This is exactly right. All I see now in mainstream news is corruption and undisclosed agendas, and just a general insult to intelligence. When mainstream news is reporting stories about reality TV and sports "stars" from the same network, you know for sure it's all a big charade to sell advertising. Of course, reddit has it's own problems as a source of truth... But there's always /r/thathappened to set us straight.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > That's a problem with people and their memory, not the news outlet. Arsenic being poisonous is in fact a problem with peoples' bodies not being able to handle it. And yet putting it in food and selling to people is not something you're allowed to. The "problem with people and their memory" here is a human universal, something thay can't do much about, so asking them to "just be smarter" is not a practical approach. > The headline at the moment literally says it was unlikely to be a drone, but that still doesn't rule it out completely. Following your rules, that wouldn't make it as a story because it isn't factually proven. And it shouldn't. Because on what basis does this story (and previous ones) promote drones to attention? It could be a bird. Or an UAV. Or a piece of plane falling off. Or someone playing with a spud gun. Or a turtle[0]. Or something else entirely. By saying "it's unlikely it was a drone" they're already framing the discussion. [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11588384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11588384

jblok 11y ago

The broader population will only remember the drone accusation. A drone maybe hitting a plane is far more interesting and sensationalist than a drone not hitting a plane. There are thousands of instances every day where drones don't hit planes. That's just how the human psyche/news in general works. You can't accuse the BBC of not reporting the updated news. Some shadier outlets might choose not to however.

cm3 11y ago
I do blame news outlets going for sensational news rather than factual statements. This is real journalism: "Flight X234 had to emergency land due to a collision with an unidentified object right after takeoff. It is not unusual to hit birds or other objects, but at at this time we don't know what it was." This is pimping news for money: "OMG, terrorist drone bought at 7/11 was navigated by attackers into plane to kill citizens." Why is libel misused to silence people, while so-called journalists can lie?
- notahacker 11y ago
  A pilot landed an aircraft after a collision with an object he believed to be a drone, following four confirmed incidents of drone near misses at UK airports in recent months. Media reported the incontrovertible fact of the aircraft landing and the pilot's presumably good-faith belief it was a drone. The BBC even put 'drone' in inverted commas in their original headline. You are seriously arguing that this amounts to "lies" and should be suppressed?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
themartorana 11y ago
This is the identical thing that will make adoption of self-driving cars difficult on a broad scale. Thousands of human-caused accidents and deaths, but the first person to die in a self-driving car (even if it's not that car's fault) will be devastating to rollout.
- 11y ago

eumoria 11y ago

No one should be able to fly a drone anywhere near an airport. If the law doesn't exist it should anyway. This also isn't the first time this has happened / been claimed to happen.

cm3 11y ago
My objection is that the first explanation was that it's a drone. It's fear mongering, like accusing citizens from a specific settlement as likely perpetrators.
sathackr 11y ago
What if they have clearance from the airport and/or control tower?
- rorykoehler 11y ago
  What size drones are we talking about here?
  - Ao7bei3s 11y ago
    Whatever the airport and/or tower cleared. As long as they know, what difference does it make?
phicoh 11y ago
The problem I see in The Netherlands is that rules prohibit flying close the airports already for a very long time. People violate those rules. New regulation is introduced to make the rules more strict. It doesn't affect me personally at the moment, but many other types of model flying become very hard. And the people violating the rules, mostly don't know them anyhow, so keep violating the rules.
lsaferite 11y ago
Laws already exist around flying R/C aircraft. They already have ceiling limits. They already have airspace limits. I live in the US, but the UK has essentially the same laws. In the US they already have registration requirements. "Drones" are the new UFOs at this point.

spatulan 11y ago

That's more conspiracy theorist, than cynic.

cm3 11y ago
That's one explanation, but I don't believe in stuff, so it doesn't apply. I've seen time and again how opinions are made via complicated and hidden propaganda. Most of it is subtle and not in your face and the world trained me to be a skeptic, is all.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>conspiracy theorist My favorite conspiracy theory is that the idea of conspiracy theories was subject to a multiple decade long attack by certain government groups to make conspiracy theory equate in popular culture to crack pot theory. Governments benefits when theories like the CIA bringing in drugs or the military doing non-consensual human experimentation on soldiers are classified under the same moniker as the theory that lizard people control the government and aliens exist but the governments of the world cover for them. But that is just a conspiracy theory.
Zigurd 11y ago
It's not a conspiracy theory to think that laws are propagandized by tickling authoritarian tendencies. Planes hit birds because they intersect with flocks of birds, because birds have nearly 100% overlap in altitude with all phases of operation of airliners, over land and over water, and because there are hundreds of billions of birds. To calculate the odds of hitting a drone, you have to divide the odds of a bird strike by population, altitude overlap and by spatial density when a flock of birds vs a single drone is encountered. This is why betting on a drone strike is, currently, a sucker-bet. Anyone who thinks a report of a drone strike is real is way way too credulous and/or biased.

HoopleHead 11y ago

Came here to say pretty much the same thing. It's a familiar old pattern: 1: "Thing" is developed which enjoys benign use amongst small subset of geeks 2: Military discover "Thing" and develop a way to use it for evil and/or killing 3: "Thing" gains in popularity amongst general public 4: Government says. "General public can't be trusted with "Thing". Thing is capable of doing evil and/or killing people!" 5: News stories start appearing: ""Thing" could be used by 'Terrists' and 'Paedos', warns expert" 6: "Thing" restricted or outlawed —in response to "public concerns" Rinse and repeat...

jgrahamc 11y ago
1: "Thing" is developed which enjoys benign use amongst small subset of geeks 2: Military discover "Thing" and develop a way to use it for evil and/or killing That ordering is not correct.
- Ao7bei3s 11y ago
  In the case of multicopters, it is.
  - madaxe_again 11y ago
    Except military UAVs tend to follow the traditional fixed-wing format rather more, as you can't fly a quadcopter halfway around the planet and keep it airborne for years. Yet.
_puk 11y ago
... warns "expert" My issue with these stories, is that there generally is no go-to organisation for the new "Thing", so all the news articles end up quoting 'Jim , the self proclaimed expert on Thing"'
- shkkmo 11y ago
  So... what would you call the AMA (http://www.modelaircraft.org/ http://www.modelaircraft.org/), these stories are generally just examples of shoddy journalism.

diginux 11y ago

The response from their Transport Minister 7 days ago seems fairly sane to me: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/drone-believed-to-have-hit-british-airways-flight-may-have-been/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/drone-believed-to...

cm3 11y ago
Again, the problem is the initial unfounded reporting. This is why people who have been accused of heinous crimes without proof or conclusive investigation, because the town people were looking for an easy to identify perpetrator, have a hard time later being treated the same as before the accusation. It's what stays in the minds of most people that's the harm.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

patcheudor 11y ago

I have a lot of mixed feelings about multi-rotor and hobby aircraft regulation. Part of me looks at all the idiots out there and goes: "okay, that's fair." But then it impacts responsible flyers and isn't consistent with some existing case law and even the US Constitution. In my state they've enacted a law that makes it illegal to film, then post video on YouTube from a multi-rotor and have all but made it illegal to fly them over private property without permission. Meanwhile, balloons! Balloonists can do whatever they want and no one is calling them out on the crazy irresponsible stuff they do. In fact, court cases dating back nearly 200 years supports their use of the air for all purposes. Yes, you might go "ha, ha", Patch is a funny guy, irresponsible balloonists, right!" but I'm serious. On April 17th of just this year we had a balloonist come quite literally inches away from hitting our neighbors house. Do you think anyone at the FAA even cared? Do you think it made the news? Nope. Below is a photo I snapped of the incident as I ran out the door to what I thought was going to be a pretty nasty ballooning accident. Throughout the centuries, owning a balloon has been something for the rich, for people who could afford good lawyers and build case law that favors nearly unrestricted flight by way of comparison to drone 'rules' being enacted. The problem with multi-rotors, is that any idiot without a lot of money can buy one, do something stupid, then be at the mercy of a public defender when they go to court. Since there are literally millions of people out there who can afford a multi-rotor but can't afford to defend themselves in court, the future isn't bright when it comes to being able to step out your door and fly a multi-rotor. https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12974373_1340409492639635_9128886582753965850_n.jpg?oh=96deec5ecf0e62087a563706451f0598&oe=57B5585F https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/1...

themartorana 11y ago
What state, and it explicitly states any video you take with a drone cannot be uploaded to the internet?
- patcheudor 11y ago
  Idaho. Specifically any drone footage with a human who has not signed a waiver. It's a real piece of work and I've partnered with a production firm here in town and hope to have a real funny video challenge to the law sometime this summer. https://www.aclu.org/blog/first-state-laws-drones https://www.aclu.org/blog/first-state-laws-drones

pessimizer 11y ago

Everybody still thinks that Apple gathered a ton of gold while recycling iPhones. You'll be hearing about it in bars for 10 years. What scrupulous recyclers they are! iDevices are probably good for the environment. The only reason hobby helicopters are called "drones" now is because the U.S. uses drones to kill people, and people had a problem with that - so now everything is a drone. I guess the next step is to ban hobby helicopters, closing the circle.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]