A small tool to view real-world ActivityPub objects as JSON! Enter a URL
or username from Mastodon or a similar service below, and we'll send a
request with
the right
Accept
header
to the server to view the underlying object.
{
"@context": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
{
"ostatus": "http://ostatus.org#",
"atomUri": "ostatus:atomUri",
"inReplyToAtomUri": "ostatus:inReplyToAtomUri",
"conversation": "ostatus:conversation",
"sensitive": "as:sensitive",
"toot": "http://joinmastodon.org/ns#",
"votersCount": "toot:votersCount",
"blurhash": "toot:blurhash",
"focalPoint": {
"@container": "@list",
"@id": "toot:focalPoint"
}
}
],
"id": "https://mastodon.social/users/ashleygjovik/statuses/113517737750861420",
"type": "Note",
"summary": null,
"inReplyTo": null,
"published": "2024-11-20T22:53:35Z",
"url": "https://mastodon.social/@ashleygjovik/113517737750861420",
"attributedTo": "https://mastodon.social/users/ashleygjovik",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://mastodon.social/users/ashleygjovik/followers"
],
"sensitive": false,
"atomUri": "https://mastodon.social/users/ashleygjovik/statuses/113517737750861420",
"inReplyToAtomUri": null,
"conversation": "tag:mastodon.social,2024-11-20:objectId=853248538:objectType=Conversation",
"content": "<p>Judge responded to my Motion for Reconsideration, saying he will not reconsider, & I'm still a bad person because I still have a gluttonous lust for more brief pages & also ampersands. He didn't order it but he basically ordered me to revise again by 11/26.<br /><a href=\"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.417952/gov.uscourts.cand.417952.140.0.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener noreferrer\" translate=\"no\"><span class=\"invisible\">https://</span><span class=\"ellipsis\">storage.courtlistener.com/reca</span><span class=\"invisible\">p/gov.uscourts.cand.417952/gov.uscourts.cand.417952.140.0.pdf</span></a></p><p>If anyone wants to help edit, I'd appreciate it - I have way too many personal issues related to that stack of paper now. Complaint is linked below & appreciate any feedback.<br /><a href=\"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.417952/gov.uscourts.cand.417952.128.0.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener noreferrer\" translate=\"no\"><span class=\"invisible\">https://</span><span class=\"ellipsis\">storage.courtlistener.com/reca</span><span class=\"invisible\">p/gov.uscourts.cand.417952/gov.uscourts.cand.417952.128.0.pdf</span></a></p>",
"contentMap": {
"en": "<p>Judge responded to my Motion for Reconsideration, saying he will not reconsider, & I'm still a bad person because I still have a gluttonous lust for more brief pages & also ampersands. He didn't order it but he basically ordered me to revise again by 11/26.<br /><a href=\"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.417952/gov.uscourts.cand.417952.140.0.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener noreferrer\" translate=\"no\"><span class=\"invisible\">https://</span><span class=\"ellipsis\">storage.courtlistener.com/reca</span><span class=\"invisible\">p/gov.uscourts.cand.417952/gov.uscourts.cand.417952.140.0.pdf</span></a></p><p>If anyone wants to help edit, I'd appreciate it - I have way too many personal issues related to that stack of paper now. Complaint is linked below & appreciate any feedback.<br /><a href=\"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.417952/gov.uscourts.cand.417952.128.0.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener noreferrer\" translate=\"no\"><span class=\"invisible\">https://</span><span class=\"ellipsis\">storage.courtlistener.com/reca</span><span class=\"invisible\">p/gov.uscourts.cand.417952/gov.uscourts.cand.417952.128.0.pdf</span></a></p>"
},
"attachment": [
{
"type": "Document",
"mediaType": "image/png",
"url": "https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/113/517/715/190/710/444/original/a3c35c9097115696.png",
"name": "Previously, the Court denied Apple’s motion for involuntary dismissal; however, it also\nsanctioned Ms. Gjovik by striking her fifth amended complaint (“5AC”) for failure to comply with\nCourt orders. The Court gave Ms. Gjovik leave to file a new 5AC so long as it complied with the\nCourt’s orders. Now pending before the Court is Ms. Gjovik’s motion for leave to file a motion to\nreconsider.\nThe motion for leave is DENIED. Ms. Gjovik has failed to establish that she should be\ngiven leave pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(b).\nFurthermore, even if the Court were to permit Ms. Gjovik to file her proposed motion to\nreconsider, it is not persuasive on the merits. For example, Ms. Gjovik argues that her formatting\nchanges were not made in bad faith because Civil Local Rule 3-4(c) applies only to manual filings,\nnot electronic filings. At best, Ms. Gjovik’s argument has merit with respect to her failure to use\nnumbered lines.1\n See Civ. L.R. 3-4(c)(1) (“Papers presented for manual filing must be on 8½ inch\nby 11 inch white paper with numbered lines . . . .”). However, the requirement of no more than 28 ",
"blurhash": "UCR{#@%Mxuxu_4j[WARj%Nj[oet7t8RjfOt7",
"focalPoint": [
0,
0
],
"width": 969,
"height": 1287
},
{
"type": "Document",
"mediaType": "image/png",
"url": "https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/113/517/715/850/520/899/original/d86e0b4b50c81493.png",
"name": "lines per page is not so restricted. See Civ. L.R. 3-4(c)(2) (“Text must appear on one side only and\nmust be double-spaced with no more than 28 lines per page . . . .”). Furthermore, under Ms.\nGjovik’s position, page limits would be meaningless because formatting requirements in the Civil\nLocal Rules could be entirely ignored for electronic filings. Cf. Wilson v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am.,\nNo. 1:13-CV-470, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148277, at *2-3 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 17, 2014) (taking note\nof Local Rule imposing formatting requirements – e.g., spacing, font size, number of lines of text;\n“[t]he purposes of these requirements are obvious: to allow the Court to read the brief without\nundue eye strain or format distractions and to insure that litigants do not avoid page limits through\ncreative but inappropriate font variation or spacing”).\nThe Court also notes that Ms. Gjovik’s repeated complaints about a page limit on her\npleading fall flat. It is not uncommon for courts to impose page limits, even for pleadings. See,\ne.g., Sullivan v. Graham, No. 23-3153, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 11968, at *9 (10th Cir. May 17,\n2024) (in case where pro se plaintiff claimed, e.g., conspiracy and fraud involving forty\ndefendants, rejecting plaintiff’s challenge to imposition of 50-page limit on his amended\ncomplaint); Lewis v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 739 Fed. Appx. 585, 585-86 (11th Cir. 2018) (rejecting ",
"blurhash": "U7RW0c?b~p?b?ca#j=t6?ct7awt7%OWBWARj",
"focalPoint": [
0,
0
],
"width": 985,
"height": 1287
},
{
"type": "Document",
"mediaType": "image/png",
"url": "https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/113/517/725/799/991/271/original/27cd7ee970f9065b.png",
"name": "from short or plain”). As the Court has stated before, nothing about this case suggests that Ms.\nGjovik should not be able to file a pleading in compliance with Rule 8 even if limited to 75 pages.\nFinally, the Court acknowledges that Ms. Gjovik has refiled a 5AC which, as a facial\nmatter, is 75 pages. See Docket No. 138 (5AC). Ms. Gjovik indicates that this complaint is\nlargely the same as the stricken 5AC; “most changes were merely abbreviations and slight\nrewording.” Docket No. 139-1 (Prop. Mot. at 2). The Court has not fully examined the new 5AC\nbut notes that abbreviations include using: “Pl.” instead of “Gjovik”; “&” instead of “and”; “env.”\ninstead of “environmental”; “gov.” instead of “government”; “discrim.” instead of\n“discrimination”; and “admin.” instead of “administrative.” Although the Court is not prejudging\nthe matter, it advises Ms. Gjovik that it will not look favorably on the use of abbreviations if so\nextensive as to constitute an attempt to effect an end-run around page limitations. See, e.g.,\nDoubleday Acquisitions LLC v. Ab, No. 1:21-cv-03749-SCJ, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 238573, at\n*15 (N.D. Ga. July 1, 2022) (ordering that “the parties shall use the de",
"blurhash": "U9R:HH%M?a%MIVogxtxt_4t7WARk?bM{Rit7",
"focalPoint": [
0,
0
],
"width": 984,
"height": 1207
}
],
"tag": [],
"replies": {
"id": "https://mastodon.social/users/ashleygjovik/statuses/113517737750861420/replies",
"type": "Collection",
"first": {
"type": "CollectionPage",
"next": "https://mastodon.social/users/ashleygjovik/statuses/113517737750861420/replies?only_other_accounts=true&page=true",
"partOf": "https://mastodon.social/users/ashleygjovik/statuses/113517737750861420/replies",
"items": []
}
},
"likes": {
"id": "https://mastodon.social/users/ashleygjovik/statuses/113517737750861420/likes",
"type": "Collection",
"totalItems": 0
},
"shares": {
"id": "https://mastodon.social/users/ashleygjovik/statuses/113517737750861420/shares",
"type": "Collection",
"totalItems": 2
}
}