This is a major reason I actively want human delivery people to be replaced by robots, I expect that in the long run the negative externalities of the sorts of people who in practice do delivery work are greater than the negative externalities of delivery robots.

I don't think they're saying they're confused about the psyche of individual people electing for delivery.

The "social question" to explore is about how so many people collectively came to see leaving the house, interacting with others humans, and setting aside work or idle distractions as bad things to be bought off with cash that we had to work to earn.

We know that people like delivery and we know that people don't like the alternatives I mention above, but that wasn't always the case and it's probably worth slowing down to think about what change and whether that might correlate with other concerns.

Insulin delivery is too important to be left to sidewalk robots that are easily stolen, blocked, destroyed (esp. in Philly), or otherwise prone to failure for technical, new technology reasons.

I'd say that this would bring up a bigger issue: why would Uber Eats be in the business of using robot couriers to deliver vital medications? Sandwiches or non-essential goods? Sure, I can understand this maybe, bracketing societal issues that these machines represent.

Prescription medications are controlled. If this robot is damaged or destroyed, the patient may not get their insulin at all without further authorization from their doctor or their insurance company. Those logistical issues are much thornier than a retired professor blocking a delivery robot.

It would be incredibly irresponsible to trust the delivery of medication to an unreliable robot.

I'll bet the person protesting would be of the opinion that it should be delivered by a person regardless of what it was.

Regardless there is a stark difference between medication, which is necessary, and hot prepared meals, which are a luxury.

Nice try, but the reality is this was just somebody's burrito. And if it were my burrito, I wouldn't be the least bit mad.

Are there food delivery robots that deliver insulin?

you're right. for that matter I suppose ICE could also be carrying insulin. better not protest them either.

There is no way in a cold hell that fucking UberEats would ever be brave enough to accept the liability necessary for that to be a thing.

The protestor assumes nothing more than that these are Uber Eats robots. Getting your Big Mac without moving your ass off the couch doesn't have quite the same moral status as having insulin delivered.

Insulin... to children.

[flagged]

Ethical questions like this are a lot easier to discuss if you take for granted that people are acting in good faith.

If you truly cared that much about Amazon and truly felt library participation was so heinous that it ought be obstructed, I think a lot of people would be very skeptical and a lot of people would disagree with that perspective, but yes, those of us who believed you were acting earnestly would indeed appreciate you standing up for your principles in a way that was impactful but not violent.

There's less skepticism of sincerity here and more agreement with the fundamental concern here, but the respect for principle and action covers both, yes.

It's civil disobedience, at least once she refused to step aside when told to do so by the police officer. (I don't know if she was breaking the law by obstructing the robot.) So yeah, I would say there is nothing inherently wrong with you obstructing the entry of the local library -- provided you are willing to be peacefully arrested.

That doesn't mean that I agree with your right to obstruct entry into the library, nor does it mean that I agree with your reasons for blocking entry to the library. I also suspect that the courts would reject your reasoning.

well yes. if you are OK with getting arrested and charged for demonstrating your political convictions, I support your nonviolent protest. this isn't the gotcha you seem to think it is.

That is how picket lines work, yes.

As long as you agree with the consequences of that (You'll be arrested quickly), sure why not?

Because the robot is operating normally and not particularly trying to obstruct her or any other person; whereas she is deliberately interfering with the robot because she has a political grievance against delivery robots and thinks it is good to interfere with their normal operation. The law should absolutely make a distinction between those two things when regulating what sorts of physical movement on the public street constitute a crime.

If your kids are making a point of getting out their sidewalk chalk to block the way of the mail carrier every time they see one, because they have a political grievance against the post office and want to do everything in their power to interfere with mail delivery, then yes they should be arrested for this. This is quite possibly already a federal crime, in fact.

> Do you think picket lines are illegal?

Picket lines that actually block other people from crossing instead of trying to persuade them not to? Yes. Use of threats, physically blocking, or just general impediment? Yes.

Not only does it violate state law (e.g. obstruction of free movement, interference with a business open to the public, false imprisonment, and assault are all offenses here in California depending on the facts), but it also violates NLRA rules.

(e.g. a recent labor case found repeated 1 to 4 minute "inadvertent" blockages unlawful -- https://www.laborrelationslawinsider.com/2018/02/the-nlrb-si...)

The Moscone Act that recognizes picketing federally also makes clear that this is not OK.

> It is not the intent of this section to permit conduct that is unlawful including breach of the peace, disorderly conduct, the unlawful blocking of access or egress to premises where a labor dispute exists, or other similar unlawful activity.

> 1A says she is free to protest human workers by getting in their way in public.

I am not a lawyer but I don't know if the first amendment allows you to block access from others to things. Some things similar to this are covered in this ACLU blog post: https://www.aclu-il.org/news/when-else-can-government-regula....

Picket lines that completely obstruct are illegal generally.

If someone is bothering me, I don't care if they claim to be doing it in the name of a political protest or not, I just want them to stop. And if they don't stop then I want the criminal justice system to compel them to stop, if necessary with violence (the cops arresting someone is absolutely an act of violence, one that I completely approve of in many cases).

Thanks

Cars occupy public spaces where more efficient modes of transport have already been mostly driven out, while delivery robots conquer additional public space.

I don't want a creepy remote control beach cooler filming me period.

A wheelchair user is a person. Uber’s property is not.

Just because something is physically on the sidewalk doesn't mean it is a "sidewalk user".

If you ask me that thing is an autonomous motor vehicle, and as such belongs on the road and its use of the sidewalk is illegal. Just like it would be if its larger Waymo cousin tried to drive there.

Besides, that robot is also blocking and refusing to go out of the way of the human. There are no laws regulating who has to yield on a sidewalk, so good luck figuring our which one is in the wrong.

Why would that stop someone?