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.”
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?