[alsobrsp]

I wouldn't call this a victimless crime. This is putting the vehicle out of service causing a loss of revenue. I consider victimless crimes to be things that consenting adults choose to do that would not harm anyone else. There is clear harm to the company.

Although, I don't disagree with the method of protest.

[NoZebra120vClip]

I don't see how a putative loss of revenue causes a victimization here. A victim is an identifiable human being, with the God-given right to life and dignity, who suffers real harm. A multibillion-dollar robotaxi AI company claims to lose a hypothetical $15 fare because their dumbass vehicle is too stupid to move? Not a victim.

[NerdiDotOrg]

It's not just 1 fare though and there are real employees and executives and investors in those companies

[sonicshadow]

We did decide that corporations are people after all

[seanmcdirmid]

Anyone with a 401k or pension is heavily invested in these businesses, so they are at least victims to these crimes. Having destitute retirees around because the economy didn’t grow enough to support their retirements is a very bad thing.

[Two4]

Anyone who speculates with 401k money on relatively risky tech stocks and startups should either be prevented from gambling with other people's money or should accept the risk to their own money.

[seanmcdirmid]

Most 401K money is invested in index funds, which include GM, Alphabet, Meta, etc...

These aren't victimless crimes, just that the people suffering from them are indirect (economic crimes always have victims).

[sonicshadow]

So should we just start arresting annoying who results in a loss of revenue for a company? I didn’t eat at Carl’s Jr today, should I go to jail?

[veec_cas_tant]

This is more akin to disabling their grills so they couldn't sell food

[NoZebra120vClip]

Carl's Jr. has several workers and a manager right there to restart the grill and get it working again.

These coners are exploiting a simple hack that would ordinarily be nothing but a minor nuisance to a human driver, but it turns into a showstopper for an SDC, because there is no responsible human for dozens of miles around. It disables the car for an inordinate period of time without a realistic mitigation. It's genius!

[veec_cas_tant]

Okay, disabling self-serve gas pumps during off hours at a 24/7 station. Removing a stop sign in the middle of the night. Turning on the faucet in an unoccupied apartment.

[NoZebra120vClip]

The ethical difference is that none of your examples stem from an interference in public safety.

SDCs are rolling into active shooter zones, they're blocking police, fire, and hydrants, they're actively stalking pedestrians.

This is not some random prankery or vandalism, this coning is a non-violent statement in defense of human dignity and rule of law.

[MichaelZuo]

No, it's clearly against California law, you can search the legislative record to see that Waymo and Cruise operations have been authorized.

[zaphirplane]

Funny and i hope you are being funny, it’s the internet you never know.

In case you are serious, there is a difference between acting to harm (human, animal, building, company). Not acting to prevent harm, not acting to provide gain.

Stealing a burger, Reporting a burger being stolen, rolling your sleeves jumping behind the grill to help out

I’m sure a philosophy major can add to the list with a clearer argument

[seanmcdirmid]

If you don’t eat at Carl’s Jr, you didn’t deprive them of willing revenue. If you decided to bar their doors so others couldn’t eat there, ya, you should go to jail.

[manuelmoreale]

That is a very low bar for jail time if you ask me but I can understand your point. Don’t agree with it but I can understand it.

[seanmcdirmid]

Your comment instituted a tongue & cheek low bar for low jail threshold, I just went with it. These days you need to practically murder someone to finally get sent to jail (at least where I live). But if someone physically barred me from entering a fast food restaurant, I’m not sure why that wouldn’t at least be assault (assuming I tried to force myself in, of course then the question is who is assaulting who, that can get messy legally). But, no, you wouldn’t even go to jail for assault, or would get bailed out quickly and get let off by the judge.

[manuelmoreale]

Well if someone barred you from entering a fast food that would be assault, absolutely.

But what if someone was pretending to be a public worker doing sidewalk maintenance and that forced you to simply walk on the other side of the road and not being able to access the fast food?

That to me is more like an annoyance and a form of protest.

[seanmcdirmid]

Impersonation of a public official will actually get you thrown in jail, for some odd reason, much faster than assault will.