this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2026
370 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

88825 readers
3226 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
370
A retired Penn professor has been blocking Uber Eats robots for months. This week, she got arrested for it (www.phillyvoice.com)
submitted 10 hours ago by UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
91 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
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 27 points 5 hours ago (4 children)

That's not legally protected activity

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 hours ago

Welcome to actual protests

[–] olejellylegs@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 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 9 points 3 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.