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.”
Corporation-owned robots have more rights than people it seems
how did this robot not impede every single other citizen of philly? miraculous
someone needs to recruit this wise one to the palestinian cause. she has that je ne sais quoi.
I think this is just another corporations have more rights than people thing. If someone was blocking a delivery truck with a human driver to protest whatever company they worked for the cops would probably arrest them too.
Why wouldn’t people have the same rights? I am pretty sure if someone keeps blocking me I could call the cops and they would show up (after some time).
Question is rather why a robot would have the same rights. Or rather why a company has these rights for their robot.
People can adjust to each others’ paths. For these robots, it seems that they always have priority over the human, which is no bueno. The robot should go around you, not the opposite.
Sure, I didn’t contest that. I just contested the claim that robots seem have more rights than people, because this incident isn’t and indicator for that.
Oh and I think the robot did try to get around her. If I read the articles about this incident right, she kept blocking it; it’s a protest after all.
Because corporations are people, my friend.
I understand where you’re coming from, but surely if you compare apples with apples and substitute a human for the robot, like the professor wasn’t letting people in a wheelchairs get past, the response would have been quicker and more severe.
How tf is a human and a robot an apple and an apple?
Yes, if is was a completely different situation that only superficially resembled this situation it wouldn’t be the same thing.
Yeah, what they’re describing sounds like a hate crime against disabled people, what this lady did is just protesting a company with shitty business practices
That robot could’ve been delivering a prescription burrito at which point she would be harming a person disabled with hunger.
Big if true
See, you say that’s apples and apples but it’s a totally different scenario. Apples to apples is changing the robot with a different type of robot that’s doing a job that a human previously would have done. By changing the robot to a human, it’s a different argument because it’s a human and not a robot. A human has different rights than a semiautominous delivery device. So apples to apples would be: instead of a Uber robot, it’s a waymo car.
By changing the robot to a human, the argument falls apart because she’s protesting using robots for jobs humans are capable of doing and traditionally did. If the robot is swapped to a human, she wouldn’t be protesting because that’s what she’s advocating for. It being a human, not a robot.
Maybe “apples to apples” is a poor choice of words, because you completely misunderstood what I meant by it, which is really the whole point of choosing which words to use. That’s on me, but you did completely misunderstand, so I feel inclined to explain.
When they said, “Corporation-owned robots have more rights than people it seems,” it seemed to me that they were basically saying something obviously incorrect for the humor of it. They never intended to compare actual human rights with apparent robot rights.
By “apples to apples,” I meant, “Let’s actually tangibly compare the rights of a robot in that situation with the rights of a human in the same situation. Not the rights of a robot compared with the idea of diminishing human rights.”
Really, the stupidest part of this in my book is a very bad reaction to my comment that simply stated the plain truth. If a lady on a sidewalk is blocking people in wheelchairs from passing, then that person will likely be arrested as soon as the police can show up, so obviously people have more rights than robots in this situation.
Edit: For clarity, the reason I brought up wheelchairs is that the robot cannot leave the sidewalk, so I wanted the human version of that.
But this is not an apple vs apple situation. It is a human vs a robot. I doubt you actually meant that a robot and a human in a wheelchair are the same?
You really think somebody harassing and blocking somebody in a wheelchair wouldn’t end the same way or worse for the harasser?
I really think someone in a wheelchair has absolutely nothing to do with what happened here. What are you even talking about?
Did you just equate a corporate appliance with a vulnerable human being?
The person they replied to is the one that introduced the comparison. You’d probably get smacked with a disorderly conduct or possibly even a kidnapping charge if you blocked even an able bodied person from walking in a public space. That doesn’t mean this lady isn’t based, but I don’t see how this scenario represents corporate property having more rights than people.
deleted by creator
No, I didn’t.
Yes you did.
Feel free to explain how.
“What if X was Y” is equating something unless you clearly articulate how it makes the thing dfferent. Your question reads to me that you are saying she was arrested just like she would be if she blocked a wheelchair.
Based on down votes it looks like others read it the same way.
Comparing similar situations =/= equating the value of two things, which is what I’m being accused of.
Am I wrong? And how else would one compare the relative “rights” of humans vs robots?
Who cares? People vote based on personal feelings. It means nothing.
Robots don’t have rights.
Yes, it would be worse for the harasser if they harassed another human being with rights instead of automated corporate property whose limited “rights” shouldn’t take precedence over a human’s.
So a robot doesn’t have more rights than a person. Glad we agree.
Agreed, and I say that as someone who fully supports what this lady is doing.