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
 

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
[–] QueenHawlSera@piefed.social 2 points 38 minutes ago

Uber Eats has fucking robots?

[–] Trigger2_2000@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 hour ago

Now where did I put my taser. /s

[–] bold_atlas@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

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

[–] SharkAttak@kbin.melroy.org 9 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 10 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I think Marvin would appreciate the sentiment.

[–] klu9@piefed.social 9 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I reckon Marvin would find a downside to it.

[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 3 points 2 hours ago

He would, but we know deep inside he would like it.

[–] HotsauceHurricane@lemmy.world 28 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 15 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

I predict they will begin to arm the robots.

We are closer to skynet every day.

[–] HotsauceHurricane@lemmy.world 2 points 36 minutes ago

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

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 hour ago

More RoboCop than Skynet.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 39 points 5 hours ago
[–] olejellylegs@lemmy.zip 29 points 5 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 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

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.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 36 points 6 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.

[–] flandish@lemmy.world 9 points 4 hours ago

it sounds like a opportunity for jury nullification

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 27 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] LilB0kChoy@reddthat.com 6 points 2 hours ago (1 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.

[–] bold_atlas@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 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 4 points 1 hour ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works 276 points 9 hours ago (10 children)

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

[–] SarahValentine@pawb.social 7 points 2 hours ago

This. Is. Democracy. Manifest!

[–] TheMadCodger@piefed.social 87 points 8 hours ago

Police exist to protect capital, not people.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 51 points 7 hours ago (3 children)
[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 36 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

That is the crime she was arrested for? Not yielding to a clanker using the sidewalk? Wow, what a joke.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 4 hours ago

The police arrest protesters for refusing to move on all the time.

You can fight it in court

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 hours ago

She ought to be careful about blocking the wheelchair ramp, otherwise she's all good

[–] Darkonion@lemmy.world 7 points 4 hours ago

It was incredibly courteous of her to allow it onto the sidewalk before stopping it.

load more comments
view more: next ›