this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2026

183 points (98.4% liked)

News

39565 readers

1881 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

183

Woman arrested after blocking delivery robot in Center City Philadelphia confrontation (6abc.com)

submitted 21 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) by Lupo@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Edit

https://www.phillyvoice.com/philly-woman-arrested-uber-eats-robot-protest/

This article has more from and about her. Even more based than before.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Zacryon@feddit.org -1 points 4 hours ago

I think it's fair that she gets sued. Whether the arrest was really necessary I don't know. You wouldn't stand in front of a train or a truck and expect not getting legal problems with that. You are disrupting traffic and a legal and civil business.

If her point is, according to the article, to protest "corporations that displace human delivery workers in order to enrich their own bottom line", I fully understand her, even if I am not convinced of her method.

Robots are awesome cool tech that could make everybody's lifes better. But their increasing deployment must come with legal and societal guardrails. Especially, we need to develop societies worldwide such that they are prepared and have solutions for the disruption of low-skilled labour markets.

Delivery robots are just the beginning. This will continue and progressively creep up the labour skill levels.

I would love to see a world where nobody has to work, because it is no longer necessary. But jobs become increasingly ineffective as the primary wealth distribution system. Robots and AI do not pair well with present capitalistic societies. This demands fundamental systematic changes in socio-economic structures.

[–] one_old_coder@piefed.social 114 points 21 hours ago (6 children)

Robots in a public space have now more rights than humans. Fuck this.

[–] jimmy90@lemmy.world -4 points 4 hours ago

i feel for you and this poor woman. being attacked by fascist robots wherever you go

dementia is cruel

[–] rants_unnecessarily@piefed.social -1 points 6 hours ago

That was somebody's food they were blocking.

[–] Fuckfuckmyfuckingass@lemmy.world 70 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Capital has more rights than humans.

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 10 points 10 hours ago

This got me thinking about how its illegal to ride bicycles on the sidewalk yet these little motorized carts are allowed but how?

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 7 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

In liberal democracies property has always had more weight than human lives.

[–] mefisdo_dot_info@lemmy.ca -2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

That's not specific to liberal democracies. Liberal democracies tend to be more respectful of human rights than other types of societies. As such they are constantly under attack by internal and external forces that place property before life. It seems they always succeed in bringing democracies down. But that's not per se the fault of liberal democracies.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Placing property before life is a defining feature of liberal democracies. Its the concept they are founded upon. Protecting private property is their guiding light. Bourgeois liberals will always sacrifice the lives of however many they have to in an effort to protect their property. Human rights are only allowed in so much as they allow for stability in that protection.

[–] mefisdo_dot_info@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

"protecting private property is their guiding light" -- that was true in ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, the mediaeval feudal societies, in Nazi Germany, etc etc. Beyond small tribal societies you are hard pressed to find an example where property wasn't more important than people. That's true for the so called communist states too, just the property technically wasn't private (in practice it was, no wonder oligarchs emerged from its collapse). And yes, it is true in lib democracies too, but with the added counter-idea of humab rights which most other societies lack(ed).

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Except its not true in a lot of your examples. Part of the reason the age of liberal revolutons took place was to secure private property rights for that Bourgeois class. To stop a king from being able to seize private property whenever they want. To stop a state from saying the state owns all of the property. You mentioned ancient greece, well think back to Athens then. When they discovered a silver mine near the city they didn't say it should belong to the person who discovered it or the person who bought the mine, they said it should be used for the public good to build a fleet. That's not private property. That's a concept which would cause liberal democracies to murder people in the streets over.

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

Nah, liberal democracies are generally partly socialist in limited but notable ways, and common property is not unusual. Nobody is massacring groups over the ideological principle of public highways, or nature preserves, or recreation centres, or national corporations. I mean, in Canada, for instance, people died due to colonialism, but that’s a different, if related story. It’s a very capitalist society with a bunch of popular collective property and “crown” (nominally state-owned) corporations.

Economic systems historically overlap. We still have shreds of feudalism hanging around.

[–] Numberone@startrek.website 11 points 17 hours ago

Yeah, actually it makes sense. They are property and the pigs' objective is to protect property.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 25 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (7 children)

I don't think the robot has MORE rights, the question here is if it should have ANY rights.
A person is not allowed to constantly block another person either, and refuse to stop even when police order it?
I also don't think it is allowed for a robot to constantly block a person. That would be a malfunction.
IMO if the robots can't navigate properly to not be unnecessarily in the way, they should not be allowed. But be sure to have a phone recording of that before "retaliating".

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 27 points 18 hours ago

Also, we're not actually talking about the robot's rights, we're talking about the rights of a for profit company to operate their equipment. When a delivery robot goes on strike and tries to organize their workplace we should definitely talk about robots' rights, but I don't think that will happen anytime soon.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] crenquis@lemmy.today 35 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Philly used to know what to do with robots...
Poor Hitchbot

[–] Malica@lemmy.zip 12 points 17 hours ago

I still mourn that guy 😭

[–] DonkeyStar@lemmy.world 9 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

May this lead to similar events.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 5 points 14 hours ago

it's philadelphia. i would be surprised if there wasn't.

[–] AllHailTheSheep@sh.itjust.works 14 points 17 hours ago

wait I know her! she does this consistently here in Chinatown and on arch street by reading terminal market. always a joy to see, she's really funny with it.

the other day I saw her manage to block one into driving over a metal grate on the sidewalk, at which point its sensors must've gotten confused cause it just stood there and didn't move. I left after about 5 minutes, I wonder if someone had to come rescue it lol

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 30 points 20 hours ago

If some guys were raping a woman, the cops would not have shown up at all

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 28 points 20 hours ago (5 children)

According to police, Marvin repeatedly blocked the robot's path and ignored multiple commands from officers to move.

She was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.

Can standing in a public space legally be enforced as "disorderly conduct?"

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 40 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Yes. If you're standing in the way of a wheelchair ramp someone needs and an officer asks you multiple times to move and you don't there should be recourse for that. I think it's pretty standard globally to have allowances for that.

Plenty of public places are protected and/or have areas you're not able to stand at all. Just because you're not on someone's private property doesn't mean you are entitled to be there or do whatever you want there. In the US we even have a loitering regulations that don't even require you to be specifically impeding something.

All that said, I think these robots should be more regulated and any companies using them are garbage.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I'd think that would be Obstructing public thoroughfare. Without saying the full interaction, it's hard to say. It looks like she's just standing in one place and it's possible to pass on one side. It'll be interesting to see what the lawyers decide on this one.

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago

The robot couldn't pass on either side. She's blocking a sidewalk ramp

What even is this argument you're trying to make?

She was given a lawrul order to move by police. She did not comply. Disorderly conduct is a very common result of that

The law is structured such that you have to follow officer instructions, even if they are unlawful. If you were given an unlawful order, your recourse is to sue the city. It's not a great system, but it's the American one

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 18 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Disorderly conduct is usually written so broadly that it can be anything the police say it is.

Being charged with disorderly conduct is basicly proof you did nothing wrong. If you'd done anything actually illegal they would've charged you with that.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago

You ever worked with middle-schoolers? Sometimes you need broad "don't be an asshat" rules because otherwise some jerks will make it their life's mission to make life hell for other people while technically not violating any rules.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 7 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

If she kept moving to be in front of it, it's not just standing there as you're framing it.

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

She wasn't charged with disorderly conduct for standing. She was charged with it for repeatedly moving and for ignoring officers' commands to stop moving.

If she did that to you while you are trying to get to your office for an important meeting, how would you feel about her actions? If the robot did that to you, how upset would you be?

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

Yes, it can, and has many times before

[–] zueski@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 hours ago

Why do more work, just chock a wheel

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 20 hours ago

I can't wait until I'm old enough to do shit like this. Not to worry about jail bc i'm old. It is going to be so much fun!

[–] kif@lemmy.nz 1 points 17 hours ago

https://youtu.be/5o1c1MJb_Oc

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 0 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I don't get it. Were these people also sabotaging factories? Were they tearing down computers? Were they ripping up plumbing and electricity?

[–] mefisdo_dot_info@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Those inventions directly and immediately created new kinds of jobs and that was clear to everyone. Plumbing made plumbers, electricity made electricians, computers made programmers. Robots take jobs and add very few new jobs. Which people dislike, because for millenia the social contract has been that everybody has to "earn" their survival. That contract, while always disingenuous due to existence of various kinds of aristocracies and elites, has been more or less in balance due to the need for labor. This is what's breaking now. And the two possible outcomes are either only the elites survive, or none of the elites survive.

[–] BorgDrone@feddit.nl 4 points 5 hours ago

They don’t “take jobs”, they save work.

Jobs are a means to an end, not a goal in itself. Jobs are not a good thing, they are a necessary evil. Things need to be done and someone needs to do them. Once we run out of stuff that needs doing, we don’t make up new work just to keep people busy. Do you think our hunter/gatherer ancestors sent out people to gather berries when they already had more than enough just so everyone could have a ‘job’? Of course not.

Our goal should be to eleminate all jobs, or at least as many as possible. Every job that is eliminated means more free time for humans to do things that actually matter.

You are confusing needing a job with needing an income. People need incomes, they don’t need jobs. You can hand people the income without creating meaningless work for them.

It’s like those stupid fundraisers where someone does a meaningless task in order to raise money. “I’m walking from the east coast to the west coast of the US to raise money for cancer research”. Why are people requiring you do something this pointless before donating? You gain nothing by requiring this. It makes no sense.

load more comments