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",
"https://spinster.xyz/schemas/litepub-0.1.jsonld",
{
"@language": "und"
}
],
"actor": "https://spinster.xyz/users/xzy45",
"attachment": [],
"attributedTo": "https://spinster.xyz/users/xzy45",
"cc": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"content": "The belief that “Gender theory as proselytized by the First Respondent is severely<br>detrimental” to both women and to lesbians is a protected philosophical belief, attracting the<br>protections of the Equality Act 2010.<br><br><br>and...<br><br>"We concluded it was not possible to separate Stonewall as a campaigning organisation from the gender theory with which the claimant disagreed. Her objection to Stonewall “proselytising” gender self-identity theory is about the difference between her belief and theirs. To separate them would be like holding that homosexuals may lack belief in evangelical Christian teaching about sinfulness of same-sex orientation, but not be protected when they speak against a church institution, or that reformed Protestants are not protected when they denounce the Church of Rome as the whore of Babylon or the Pope as the Antichrist."<br><br>and....<br><br>19. The main hearing bundle was exceptionally difficult to work with. Despite the guidance on preparation of electronic bundles in CPR, the Employment Tribunals Presidential Direction, Employment Judge Stout’s explicit directions in earlier case management hearings, and the time the case had taken to come to hearing, it seemed to have been randomly thrown together. Sections were not OCR readable. Over 600 pages of Garden Court disclosure were not in the main index but in a 13 page sub-index inserted between pages 374 and 375. Five other sub-indexes had been grafted in, but did not reach the tribunal until 18 May. Pagination from earlier bundles had not been removed, complicating the search function. Pages had been inserted sideways. Email exchanges could be 2,000 or 4,000 pages apart. There was frequent duplication of the same emails or tweets. An additional 116 pages (“section L”) did not reach the tribunal until 20 May. The supplementary bundle was added to more than once, and additions not always notified to the tribunal.<br><br><br>ET judgement - Allison Bailey, first respondent Stonewall.",
"context": "https://spinster.xyz/contexts/62027fab-e551-440c-b5b4-cd87a6b049a2",
"conversation": "https://spinster.xyz/contexts/62027fab-e551-440c-b5b4-cd87a6b049a2",
"id": "https://spinster.xyz/objects/11542677-5514-4da3-a8d8-759f15c407ae",
"inReplyTo": "https://spinster.xyz/objects/44fd96c1-4c73-4f37-8404-a87989e4f566",
"published": "2022-07-28T13:20:19.351983Z",
"sensitive": false,
"source": "The belief that “Gender theory as proselytized by the First Respondent is severely\ndetrimental” to both women and to lesbians is a protected philosophical belief, attracting the\nprotections of the Equality Act 2010.\n\n\nand...\n\n\"We concluded it was not possible to separate Stonewall as a campaigning organisation from the gender theory with which the claimant disagreed. Her objection to Stonewall “proselytising” gender self-identity theory is about the difference between her belief and theirs. To separate them would be like holding that homosexuals may lack belief in evangelical Christian teaching about sinfulness of same-sex orientation, but not be protected when they speak against a church institution, or that reformed Protestants are not protected when they denounce the Church of Rome as the whore of Babylon or the Pope as the Antichrist.\"\n\nand....\n\n19. The main hearing bundle was exceptionally difficult to work with. Despite the guidance on preparation of electronic bundles in CPR, the Employment Tribunals Presidential Direction, Employment Judge Stout’s explicit directions in earlier case management hearings, and the time the case had taken to come to hearing, it seemed to have been randomly thrown together. Sections were not OCR readable. Over 600 pages of Garden Court disclosure were not in the main index but in a 13 page sub-index inserted between pages 374 and 375. Five other sub-indexes had been grafted in, but did not reach the tribunal until 18 May. Pagination from earlier bundles had not been removed, complicating the search function. Pages had been inserted sideways. Email exchanges could be 2,000 or 4,000 pages apart. There was frequent duplication of the same emails or tweets. An additional 116 pages (“section L”) did not reach the tribunal until 20 May. The supplementary bundle was added to more than once, and additions not always notified to the tribunal.\n\n\nET judgement - Allison Bailey, first respondent Stonewall.",
"summary": "",
"tag": [
{
"href": "https://spinster.xyz/users/xzy45",
"name": "@xzy45",
"type": "Mention"
}
],
"to": [
"https://spinster.xyz/users/xzy45",
"https://spinster.xyz/users/xzy45/followers"
],
"type": "Note"
}