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",
"type": "OrderedCollectionPage",
"orderedItems": [
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/entities/urn:activity:1194543327612518400",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215",
"content": "I don't believe racism is fundamentally worse than any other kind of arbitrary discrimination. If you have a working moral compass and intuitively know why racism is wrong, then you know why every other unjust discrimination is wrong. For example, disliking someone for having red hair is exactly as wrong as disliking someone for having dark skin. This is why I do not forgive Democrats in the 1800's for supporting slavery. It was self-evidently wrong. It was as self-evidently wrong as it is today to discriminate against Asians in college admissions, which Democrats also support. The fact is that most Democrats and many Republicans have a broken moral compass. Without this compass, everything becomes uncertain and anxiety-provoking. So, what they really are trying to find is certainty. They get this from the crowd.<br /><br />Most Democrats are traumatized by what people think about them. Political correctness IS their compass in life. The civil rights movement made it clear that they were wrong, and at that point they flipped and became extremists on the other end, and now they are still violating the same principle that would have made them anti-racist a hundred years ago, but it just looks different.<br /><br />Always be suspicious of people who are extremely emotional about something. There's a good chance they don't believe in it at all.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1194543327612518400",
"published": "2021-01-09T07:28:42+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "I don't believe racism is fundamentally worse than any other kind of arbitrary discrimination. If you have a working moral compass and intuitively know why racism is wrong, then you know why every other unjust discrimination is wrong. For example, disliking someone for having red hair is exactly as wrong as disliking someone for having dark skin. This is why I do not forgive Democrats in the 1800's for supporting slavery. It was self-evidently wrong. It was as self-evidently wrong as it is today to discriminate against Asians in college admissions, which Democrats also support. The fact is that most Democrats and many Republicans have a broken moral compass. Without this compass, everything becomes uncertain and anxiety-provoking. So, what they really are trying to find is certainty. They get this from the crowd.\n\nMost Democrats are traumatized by what people think about them. Political correctness IS their compass in life. The civil rights movement made it clear that they were wrong, and at that point they flipped and became extremists on the other end, and now they are still violating the same principle that would have made them anti-racist a hundred years ago, but it just looks different.\n\nAlways be suspicious of people who are extremely emotional about something. There's a good chance they don't believe in it at all.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/entities/urn:activity:1194543327612518400/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/entities/urn:activity:1194543221531590656",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215",
"content": "Republicans: You lost this election 20 years ago.<br /><br />I wrote this a month ago, but I'm sharing it again now that conservatives are partially aware of their defeat. It's time to think about the future. It's time to do something different. <br /><br />We are failing to stop the rise of communism in America because most conservatives seem to only be aware of one battlefront. How convenient would it be if we could just vote on election day and be saved by one special president? But that will never be enough; it will take more intelligence and force of will than any culture in history has ever been able to rally, exerted on a whole array of battlefronts. Here are a few of them.<br /><br /><a href=\"https://beinglesswrong.blogspot.com/2020/12/conservatives-you-lost-battle-because.html?m=1\" target=\"_blank\">https://beinglesswrong.blogspot.com/2020/12/conservatives-you-lost-battle-because.html?m=1</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1194543221531590656",
"published": "2021-01-09T07:28:17+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Republicans: You lost this election 20 years ago.\n\nI wrote this a month ago, but I'm sharing it again now that conservatives are partially aware of their defeat. It's time to think about the future. It's time to do something different. \n\nWe are failing to stop the rise of communism in America because most conservatives seem to only be aware of one battlefront. How convenient would it be if we could just vote on election day and be saved by one special president? But that will never be enough; it will take more intelligence and force of will than any culture in history has ever been able to rally, exerted on a whole array of battlefronts. Here are a few of them.\n\nhttps://beinglesswrong.blogspot.com/2020/12/conservatives-you-lost-battle-because.html?m=1",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/entities/urn:activity:1194543221531590656/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/entities/urn:activity:1194542806200877056",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215",
"content": "Tesla has earned me 30% over the last month. Wall Street underestimates Tesla because they analyze them as a strictly automotive company. And today, Market Watch posted an article that even recognized the potential of robotaxi networks, yet only considered its effect on the number of cars sold. This is beyond stupid. ARK Invest is one of the only ones analyzing Tesla correctly, and I don't think it's a coincidence that they are also the most optimistic on Tesla.<br /><br />Basically, the short term might be rocky, but there is a high likelihood that they will _still_ achieve 10x compared to where they are now. I didn't think it was too late to invest a month ago, and I don't think it's too late now.<br /><br /><a href=\"https://ark-invest.com/articles/analyst-research/tesla-price-target/\" target=\"_blank\">https://ark-invest.com/articles/analyst-research/tesla-price-target/</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1194542806200877056",
"published": "2021-01-09T07:26:38+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Tesla has earned me 30% over the last month. Wall Street underestimates Tesla because they analyze them as a strictly automotive company. And today, Market Watch posted an article that even recognized the potential of robotaxi networks, yet only considered its effect on the number of cars sold. This is beyond stupid. ARK Invest is one of the only ones analyzing Tesla correctly, and I don't think it's a coincidence that they are also the most optimistic on Tesla.\n\nBasically, the short term might be rocky, but there is a high likelihood that they will _still_ achieve 10x compared to where they are now. I didn't think it was too late to invest a month ago, and I don't think it's too late now.\n\nhttps://ark-invest.com/articles/analyst-research/tesla-price-target/",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/entities/urn:activity:1194542806200877056/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/entities/urn:activity:1186401452026982400",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215",
"content": "We are just now entering the dramatic phase of the battery disruption of the internal combustion engine. It will take 2-3 years for the industry average to cross the threshold price, but from today we will start to see a higher rate of depreciation for gasoline-powered vehicles.<br /><br />Disruptive innovation is a specific concept introduced by Clayton Christensen, and it is very good at predicting big changes in industries. Apple is currently doing it with ARM chips, Tesla with batteries, and Airbnb with hotels. When a startup is based on a disruptive technology, it has something like a 35% chance of succeeding, whereas startups based on sustaining innovations only have something like a 4% chance of succeeding. I am going to base my investment decisions entirely on this theory. I was already investing a little bit in Tesla to try it out, but I'm going to go all in on disruptive technologies now.<br /><br />The cool thing is how much these companies are currently undervalued (yes, even Tesla) because most people do not understand disruptive innovation. Even in Clayton Christensen's book, he predicted that Tesla would fail, failing to realize that it wasn't the car that needed the innovation, but the batteries, and Tesla's innovations weren't just driven by cars, but by everything Panasonic was supplying batteries to. Batteries are a classic case of disruptive innovation, but maybe it's a lot easier to see all of this in hindsight. It's possible that the theory itself isn't complete as it's formulated, and could use some fine tuning, but I think my intuition about the phenomenon is getting better. <br /><br />Disruptive innovation is transferring power over to more abstract forms of capital. The more abstract something is, the more reusable it is, the more frequently used it is, the more quickly feedback is given, and the faster the owner can innovate. I believe in 30 years, most jobs in our lives will be facilitated by a single architecture of open-source software that will function as an extension of the cerebral cortex.<br /><br />Anyway, have that link <a href=\"https://electrek.co/2020/12/16/electric-vehicle-battery-dips-critical-100-kwh-price-point/\" target=\"_blank\">https://electrek.co/2020/12/16/electric-vehicle-battery-dips-critical-100-kwh-price-point/</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1186401452026982400",
"published": "2020-12-17T20:15:48+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "We are just now entering the dramatic phase of the battery disruption of the internal combustion engine. It will take 2-3 years for the industry average to cross the threshold price, but from today we will start to see a higher rate of depreciation for gasoline-powered vehicles.\n\nDisruptive innovation is a specific concept introduced by Clayton Christensen, and it is very good at predicting big changes in industries. Apple is currently doing it with ARM chips, Tesla with batteries, and Airbnb with hotels. When a startup is based on a disruptive technology, it has something like a 35% chance of succeeding, whereas startups based on sustaining innovations only have something like a 4% chance of succeeding. I am going to base my investment decisions entirely on this theory. I was already investing a little bit in Tesla to try it out, but I'm going to go all in on disruptive technologies now.\n\nThe cool thing is how much these companies are currently undervalued (yes, even Tesla) because most people do not understand disruptive innovation. Even in Clayton Christensen's book, he predicted that Tesla would fail, failing to realize that it wasn't the car that needed the innovation, but the batteries, and Tesla's innovations weren't just driven by cars, but by everything Panasonic was supplying batteries to. Batteries are a classic case of disruptive innovation, but maybe it's a lot easier to see all of this in hindsight. It's possible that the theory itself isn't complete as it's formulated, and could use some fine tuning, but I think my intuition about the phenomenon is getting better. \n\nDisruptive innovation is transferring power over to more abstract forms of capital. The more abstract something is, the more reusable it is, the more frequently used it is, the more quickly feedback is given, and the faster the owner can innovate. I believe in 30 years, most jobs in our lives will be facilitated by a single architecture of open-source software that will function as an extension of the cerebral cortex.\n\nAnyway, have that link https://electrek.co/2020/12/16/electric-vehicle-battery-dips-critical-100-kwh-price-point/",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/entities/urn:activity:1186401452026982400/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/entities/urn:activity:1166089565071785984",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215",
"content": "With today's news, I'm really excited to see Twitter and Facebook retract what they've said about the New York Post article about Biden accepting bribery for government favors on behalf of foreign businesses. Because today the CEO that Hunter Biden hired has come forward with evidence that the emails on Hunter's laptop are legitimate, and were in fact referencing Joe Biden. So, any day now they'll apologize for blocking all tweets that linked to that true news story and reinstate all the accounts they've shut down for sharing it, right? <br /><br />It's ironic how for 3 years Twitter and Facebook allowed fake news on Russian conspiracy theories, but now that a real story has come out with evidence of actual corruption, they block it to protect their favorite candidate. Wait a second... a politician who sells policy to massive corporations is being protected by massive corporations? <br /><br />How are people so bad at differentiating between real and fake?",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1166089565071785984",
"published": "2020-10-22T19:03:37+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "With today's news, I'm really excited to see Twitter and Facebook retract what they've said about the New York Post article about Biden accepting bribery for government favors on behalf of foreign businesses. Because today the CEO that Hunter Biden hired has come forward with evidence that the emails on Hunter's laptop are legitimate, and were in fact referencing Joe Biden. So, any day now they'll apologize for blocking all tweets that linked to that true news story and reinstate all the accounts they've shut down for sharing it, right? \n\nIt's ironic how for 3 years Twitter and Facebook allowed fake news on Russian conspiracy theories, but now that a real story has come out with evidence of actual corruption, they block it to protect their favorite candidate. Wait a second... a politician who sells policy to massive corporations is being protected by massive corporations? \n\nHow are people so bad at differentiating between real and fake?",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/entities/urn:activity:1166089565071785984/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/entities/urn:activity:1164627328006819840",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215",
"content": "I coded for 14 hours yesterday and watched Man in the High Castle during breaks. So of course most of my dreams involved Nazis telling me what to name my functions and variables. Himmler specifically didn't want me to rename \"getAdapterReactions\" to \"getReactions,\" probably because he's stupid. Sometimes I like to think that my dreams are trying to tell me something important, but this was a reminder that most dreams are just ridiculous. Or maybe the lesson was, \"Don't vote for socialists or eventually all of your variable names will have to be longer.\"",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1164627328006819840",
"published": "2020-10-18T18:13:12+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "I coded for 14 hours yesterday and watched Man in the High Castle during breaks. So of course most of my dreams involved Nazis telling me what to name my functions and variables. Himmler specifically didn't want me to rename \"getAdapterReactions\" to \"getReactions,\" probably because he's stupid. Sometimes I like to think that my dreams are trying to tell me something important, but this was a reminder that most dreams are just ridiculous. Or maybe the lesson was, \"Don't vote for socialists or eventually all of your variable names will have to be longer.\"",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/entities/urn:activity:1164627328006819840/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/entities/urn:activity:1032737801324220416",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215",
"content": "Today as I was habitually visiting Facebook, I had a realization: Most of what I've been seeing these days in my feed has been content from specific pages. But content is everywhere. Why would I choose to access it through Facebook when they suck so bad? 90% of the other stuff I see is from close friends and family, whom I could probably easily convince to get onto this platform. All the rest is superficial posts from acquaintances.<br /><br />I'll still use Facebook to keep in touch with certain people, but I'm just tired of supporting a platform that's been ruined by idiots and who most likely have nefarious plans for artificial intelligence.<br /><br />I'm also hoping to post some interesting content myself, and I'd much rather post it here than on YouTube, where they think they can make money by only appealing to the lowest common denominator of sensitive viewers. Is matching advertisers to content creators really that hard?<br /><br />I like Minds so far. It seems pretty close to what I assumed was the ideal fundamental incentive structure for both quality and freedom. YouTube should have been that, but it looks like all the smart people have been overrun by sensitive, uncreative money seekers. ",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1032737801324220416",
"published": "2019-10-20T19:31:19+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Today as I was habitually visiting Facebook, I had a realization: Most of what I've been seeing these days in my feed has been content from specific pages. But content is everywhere. Why would I choose to access it through Facebook when they suck so bad? 90% of the other stuff I see is from close friends and family, whom I could probably easily convince to get onto this platform. All the rest is superficial posts from acquaintances.\n\nI'll still use Facebook to keep in touch with certain people, but I'm just tired of supporting a platform that's been ruined by idiots and who most likely have nefarious plans for artificial intelligence.\n\nI'm also hoping to post some interesting content myself, and I'd much rather post it here than on YouTube, where they think they can make money by only appealing to the lowest common denominator of sensitive viewers. Is matching advertisers to content creators really that hard?\n\nI like Minds so far. It seems pretty close to what I assumed was the ideal fundamental incentive structure for both quality and freedom. YouTube should have been that, but it looks like all the smart people have been overrun by sensitive, uncreative money seekers. ",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/entities/urn:activity:1032737801324220416/activity"
}
],
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/outbox",
"partOf": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1032717941507891215/outboxoutbox"
}