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.”
Because robots in the physical world are legal, and in this case using public sidewalks. Online bots are violating terms of service as defined by the human owners of websites.
They are not explicitly illegal. That doesn’t mean they or their owners have rights that supersede those of the general public.
The general philosophy of US law is that not being explicitly illegal means legal. Robots have no rights whatsoever, but their owners have the same rights as everybody else. Refer to my example of blocking someone’s car into a parking space.
Cars and motorcycles aren’t allowed on sidewalks. What makes those robots so special that you think they should be allowed to occupy an already crowded and very definitely human space?
They don’t have to be special, they just have to be allowed, which depends on local laws that restrict their weight, speed, and other things. This whole line of argument misses my point that giving workers a share of the benefits of innovation would be better than treating the innovations as the enemy.
This is your opinion and I disagree. They’re free to sort it out with the heavy machinery on the tarmac, though, if and only if they’re taxed as other vehicles are taxed too.
We’re talking about uber eats, do you think they will give any worker a share of any benefit? Get real.
There’s a difference between do and should. They should. That requires regulation.
Of course they should, but they won’t. Regulation means an elected representative would have to propose the law, it would have to be approved, then signed into law. Won’t ever happen because of regulatory capture.
And yet a huge body of regulatory law exists.
Companies will only give workers a share of the benefits of innovation if they’re forced to - a goal I’d rather try to achieve than call it impossible. People have taken your attitude about all sorts of real things - worker safety rules, food quality standards, the right to unionize… even the idea that people would obey lines painted on the road was originally scoffed at. And yet we have them. So get real yourself.
You’re very wrong if you think I’m being defeatist because I enjoy it. I’m just jaded after a lifetime of enduring the apathy of everyone around me. If you’re not like me yet and don’t want to lose that spark, keep fighting. I’m just too tired to do it myself. Good luck.
Sorry you’re so burned out, and I hope something comes along to reignite your passion - there’s always that chance.
You blocking bots ona platform has nothing to do with ToS. Blocking a robot is just standing in front of it, it’s not human. You are allowed to stand on a public sidewalk. If it stops moving because you stand in front if it, how is that illegal?
That’s the kind of bland rationalization an asshole would make for blocking your car into a parking space. The difference is only in the details.
the “detail” is the fact one is a human and one is a robot. That’s a pretty big detail if you ask me