this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2026

463 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

88848 readers

3957 users here now

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

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
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.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
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

463

A retired Penn professor has been blocking Uber Eats robots for months. This week, she got arrested for it (www.phillyvoice.com)

submitted 18 hours ago by UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

114 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."

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

"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.

[–] altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 19 minutes ago

I think that to trully give urgent delivery services a purpose we need:

Abandon 0-day delivery services unless they serve a significant purpose, e.g. for immobile persons, delivering medicine, etc. That would erase like 95% of required labor;
Reclassify the rest as a communal service, mostly on a regular schedule between known clientelle;
Optimize paths between vendors (or hubs) and delivery targets for the remaining fleet. At this point a minimal system is upheld by a minimum number of members of community who don't need to hurry and use motor vehicles;
Create an option to offload some delivery task to other community members who live nearby and go this route anyway, probably via some app;
Allow for less urgent delivery jobs being posted, but always served by the members of the same community. Community collectively defines what non-critical deliveries hold value, e.g. delivering flowers for a birthday celebration can be seen as okayish to do.

Fetch quests, when optimized, provide some persons with meaningful labor that keeps up their physique, and their, and then others' involvement ties the community together and makes personal connections between people in it. Drones navigating the sidewalks humans use are irrelevant if the amount of labor needed is not overwhelming to begin with, and doesn't need to be optimized by producing expensive robots and computer vision models.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

It's replacing a dude on an ebike, not a car

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Spending your time inconveniencing delivery robots is 100% jobless behaviour.

Is that really the best thing you have to do with your time?

[–] Prior_Industry@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

"Carolyn Marvin, 78..."

Going hazard a guess that this is probably what gets her up in the morning.

[–] Kind_to_Everyone@slrpnk.net 15 points 7 hours ago

Act surprised when it's revealed Uber sells the camera feed to flock.

[–] DoctorWhoDMC@lemmy.world 11 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

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."

[–] QueenHawlSera@piefed.social 10 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Uber Eats has fucking robots?

[–] isles@infosec.pub 25 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

No, just delivery ones

[–] Focal@pawb.social 7 points 7 hours ago

[–] HotsauceHurricane@lemmy.world 40 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I think hungry people are going to start stopping these because they have food in them.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 24 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

I predict they will begin to arm the robots.

We are closer to skynet every day.

[–] HotsauceHurricane@lemmy.world 9 points 8 hours ago

The robots have food AND GUNS IN THEM! THE REVOLUTION WILL BE PAID FOR BY UBER EATS

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 5 points 9 hours ago

More RoboCop than Skynet.

[–] rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works 335 points 17 hours ago (11 children)

What is the charge? Blocking a meal? A succulent Chinese meal?!

[–] SarahValentine@pawb.social 12 points 11 hours ago

This. Is. Democracy. Manifest!

[–] TheMadCodger@piefed.social 116 points 16 hours ago

Police exist to protect capital, not people.

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 46 points 13 hours ago

[–] TrackenDaKracken@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

https://youtu.be/jJLNurAIrlM

[–] olejellylegs@lemmy.zip 39 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 28 points 13 hours ago (7 children)

That's not legally protected activity

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 1 points 8 minutes ago* (last edited 8 minutes ago)

Your rights are being slowly pulled tighter around your neck, and the legal system is not your friend anymore.

When communicating online, like we are right now, is longer considered a legally protected activity, do you roll over like a good puppy and stop communicating with others online in information free forums?

It was legal to kill Jews. Does that mean it was okay, since that was a legally protected activity? Does that mean living as a Jew, no longer being a legally protected activity, requires that you turn yourself in because you are no longer allowed to exist where you are?

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 1 points 16 minutes ago* (last edited 13 minutes ago)

Almost no activity is a legally protected activity in a society and government hellbent on control.

The law did actually use to mean something, as it was, to some degree, written and enforced with care and consideration.

The law means considerably less now that it has been captured and written by those in power without consideration and simply as a tool to selectively enforce their power and target undesirable sub cultures.

Just like flock cameras, no one cares if someone goes and spray-paints or vandalizes some wandering piece of corporate equipment from corporations that are abusing their power and cuddling up to the current regime. It being a legally protected activity or not doesn't matter, because what is considered a legally protected activity no longer matters. The law is no longer something that applies based off the will of the people, but instead is something that applies and is built based off the will of a select few (many of whom are loyal and funded by the same corporations).

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Welcome to actual protests

[–] andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 8 points 6 hours ago

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.

[–] olejellylegs@lemmy.zip 15 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

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 Savio

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 12 points 11 hours ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] bold_atlas@lemmy.world 9 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

It really pisses me off how pristine and undamaged that piece of shit looks.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 45 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

"criminal mischief involving a robot"

Sounds like a cool name for an upbeat song by an avant garde electro-jazz group.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 39 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

She was arrested for "disorderly conduct", for just standing there.

[–] LilB0kChoy@reddthat.com 12 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 1 points 7 minutes ago

Yeah, but standing on a sidewalk and allowing people to pass you by is not blocking anything...?

So, even if that's the case, it seems pretty weak.

[–] bold_atlas@lemmy.world 10 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 1 points 4 minutes ago

Okay, but define standing there, and define public space, and define blocking.

Is standing in a public space for 10 minutes blocking?

What if you're standing in a line? What if you're standing, looking at a parking meter? Perhaps you're waiting for the walk sign on the road, and you're standing on the edge of the sidewalk?

Is there now a large list of exceptions? Does that mean standing in a public space where your activity is not part of the list of exceptions means you are now obstructing it?

What if you're standing in a public space, but you're a worker and are actually tasked with working on that public space? Technically, you are standing in a public space, so you are blocking it, no?

Is there some temporal element to this? If not, then are you technically blocking a public space simply by existing in that public space? If at any point you are in that public space, you are not actively moving out of that public space?

So on and so forth. This can continue forever.

The implications of something like that are pretty far-reaching, and the ambiguities are great.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] artyom@piefed.social 135 points 17 hours ago (20 children)

There are Waymos that drive through my workplace all night long. Like literally every 10 minutes. They cause problems all the time, as we have semi tractor-trailers trying to dock, and they'll block their movement and then just sit there waiting. They started putting up cones so they wouldn't pull through but now all the legitimate traffic has to get out and move them around every time they want to come through.

One time I blocked 3 of them in for several hours by trapping them by putting more cones behind them, such that there was no exit. That was fun.

load more comments (20 replies)

[–] SharkAttak@kbin.melroy.org 12 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Kinda ironic for a Marvin to block a robot...

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 12 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I think Marvin would appreciate the sentiment.

[–] klu9@piefed.social 9 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

I reckon Marvin would find a downside to it.

[–] BigPotato@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago

"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."

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments