cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/53250107
Police confirmed they had responded to a report of “criminal mischief involving a robot” on the 1200 block of Filbert Street around 1:16 p.m. on Wednesday. A woman on the scene ignored “multiple commands” to move, they said, resulting in a criminal violation notice for disorderly conduct.
Uber declined to comment.
Marvin, who plans to contest the charge on the grounds of her First Amendment right to protest, has been undeterred by the arrest. She plans to continue blocking Uber Eats robots and chatting with curious passersby who ask what she’s doing.
“It allows me to talk to people about what’s going on,” she said. “It’s always very interesting conversations that we have, and I think it’s good to have those kinds of conversations in public space.”
“I know they’re taking the jobs of human delivery workers and so, I have been protesting them whenever I saw them by standing in front of them and preventing them from going forward,” Marvin said.
I mean fuck. Do we want people working as delivery drones? Really? The other post in fuckai about this doesn’t even mention she’s been doing this for month which obscures why she’s been arrested.
And climate change is real you know? A small robot takes little energy compared to a full sized car.
Ideally delivery robots should be state owned and accountable to democratic processes. They are a valuable and useful innovation to solve logistic problems. A way to reshape how neighborhoods are build and planned and make them more energy efficient.
This dogmatic opposition to anything AI is really becoming more and more irrational, less and less grounded in facts and rational arguments. AI needs to be regulated. Like China currently does AI regulations best, but we can’t even imagine things like that any more because people just accept neoliberalism as the new world order and screaming is the only thing left to do apparently instead of demanding regulations or nationalization of certain AI infrastructure. Maybe this is linked to some kind of anti-democracy propaganda campaign. Divide and conquer, and don’t even let talk about regulation enter the public discussion.
It’s replacing a dude on an ebike, not a car
You should dream bigger. We have the technology to not need delivery drivers any more, but you want to keep them? Why? Because you think neoliberal capitalism can’t be replaced with something more just and socialist? That is my charge against this whole critique. Why the fuck do you want people working crappy delivery jobs?
All of this should be replaced by a national post office type of delivery service.
Act surprised when it’s revealed Uber sells the camera feed to flock.
Broke: “Uber should hire real humans, not robots!”
Woke: “Uber is a complete rip-off with a deceptive pricing model that is doing nothing but fueling obesity rates, regardless. Never use it.”
Uber Eats has fucking robots?
No, just delivery ones
It really pisses me off how pristine and undamaged that piece of shit looks.
I think hungry people are going to start stopping these because they have food in them.
I predict they will begin to arm the robots.
We are closer to skynet every day.
The robots have food AND GUNS IN THEM! THE REVOLUTION WILL BE PAID FOR BY UBER EATS
More RoboCop than Skynet.
Ah see that’s where she went wrong, making a scene standing there.
Just spray paint the sensor and move on with your life. Or tip it over. Or put a cone over the sensor. Then disappear.
That’s not legally protected activity
Welcome to actual protests
Respectfully, you’re missing a key piece.
You’re making the point that you can’t stand up to oppressive powers like Uber while operating within the law.
Crucially: so is she.
This woman is an academic expert on law and our rights, and what she’s doing is exploiting a loophole in Uber’s control scheme in public and forcing everyone to watch what happens.
She is creating a problem for Uber while denying them a legally justifiable reason to wield law against her. Which will either demonstrate to more people an action that allows protestors to impose harm on a powerful company while remaining out of reach of their ability to impose punishment, or force them to reveal that their ability to impose punishment isn’t actually based on law, it’s based on power.
In doing so, she helps analyze the strength of various legal rights that can still be used and unmasks which ones no longer exist.
That’s irrelevant.
There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part! You can’t even passively take part! And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels … upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop! And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!
— Mario SavioSo? It might not be a Tuesday… Make your point dumbass…
Not sure this will be either. Just because we agree with it doesn’t mean that intentionally stopping a service provided by a company won’t make you liable in court if they sued them. “People have increased doubts about ordering products on our platform because they were intentionally stopping the products from arriving”
I can’t see a reasonable judge not finding them liable and therby any damages the company can prove plus court fees would be on this person.
So?
Kinda ironic for a Marvin to block a robot…
I think Marvin would appreciate the sentiment.
I reckon Marvin would find a downside to it.
“Ah, what’s the point? You block one robot, they send another. Just my luck they’d send me - brain the size of a planet and I’m delivering your takeaway. Now what have you got? Someone gets cold food and you go to jail. Not a good trade if you ask me.”
He would, but we know deep inside he would like it.
Now where did I put my taser. /s
What is the charge? Blocking a meal? A succulent Chinese meal?!
This. Is. Democracy. Manifest!
Police exist to protect capital, not people.
Aaannnnddd then?
Get your hand off my penis!
No and then!
Can I get a shrimp fried rice?
Annnnd theeeeennnn?
NO AND THEN
👀
Disorderly conduct.
“criminal mischief involving a robot”
Sounds like a cool name for an upbeat song by an avant garde electro-jazz group.
it sounds like a opportunity for jury nullification
She was arrested for “disorderly conduct”, for just standing there.
After looking at the Philadelphia statute for disorderly conduct I’m assuming it’s based off this:
Obstructing a Highway or other Public Passage. No person shall, without legal privilege to do so, intentionally or recklessly obstruct a highway, sidewalk, or other public passage.
I want to know WHO was she obstructing? Sidewalks are for people. Are the cops going to make sure stray animals have full access as well?
Anyone trying to navigate that section of the sidewalk.
It’s still bullshit, and it’s still a first amendment issue as it is a form of protest.
But standing somewhere, blocking a public space is obstructing the flow of traffic, and meets the standard. Being arrested is part and parcel of protest because legal challenges form precedent. Sometimes you want to be arrested for both visibility and that opportunity to challenge a law, or otherwise shift things.
Blocking the robot isn’t the same as blocking a human. But blocking robot did block other humans. They had to navigate around it. Rubbernecking is inevitable. You’ve got the people interested in what she’s doing and why standing there too. In terms of whether or not she violated that law, there’s zero doubt she did.
And that’s part of the process of changing that law, hopefully
Step aside HUMAN!
That is the crime she was arrested for? Not yielding to a clanker using the sidewalk? Wow, what a joke.
The police arrest protesters for refusing to move on all the time.
You can fight it in court
She ought to be careful about blocking the wheelchair ramp, otherwise she’s all good
It was incredibly courteous of her to allow it onto the sidewalk before stopping it.
