this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2026
498 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

88848 readers
3871 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
498
A retired Penn professor has been blocking Uber Eats robots for months. This week, she got arrested for it (www.phillyvoice.com)
submitted 20 hours ago by UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
136 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ascense@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Yes, that is what the legal system is set up to handle. Sometimes things are clear cut and there is no issue, but cases are often ambiguous, and that's when you have a trial to determine the outcome. Both parties get to present their case, and a judge makes a decision based on their best judgement of the law and common sense (at least that is the intent). Ambiguity is not a gotcha, it is very much to be expected and what the system is built around.

Of course there can be cases where the law really is too vague to be reasonably followed, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.