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": "Like",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1071748957970898948",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618581618734407694/entities/urn:activity:1519677584818835468",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618581618734407694",
"content": "Hijacking Their Propaganda.<br /><br />I've wondered for a while if there's a way to hijack some of the WEF agitpro and I think there's a fairly strong case to made for stealing the \"net zero\" phrase.<br /><br />Mass immigration is an objective problem in western nations. It erodes local cultures and customs, destroys property values and stagnates wages. These are not just my opinions, these are facts as stated by the Bank of England.<br /><br />It would be interesting to see the impact if we were to start referring to lowering rates of immigration as \"net zero immigration\".<br /><br />Firstly a \"same in same out\" approach would drastically cut the rate at which we see it happening. Down from 1million a year to around 200-300k. Still too much but a large step down. More importantly because it's the \"same in same out\" model that \"net zero\" uses it could be touted by use of other agitprop phrases: \"Sustainable immigration\", \"smart immigration\" etc. If they want to talk about \"climate refugees\", why not use other buzzwords for reference in the opposite direction?<br /><br />Using the \"net zero\" rhetoric also highlights one of the star darlings of WEF and the lefts position. First world nations consume more and produce more CO2 than third world countries. Assuming you think this is bad, then moving third worlders to the first world would drastically increase their consumption and thus carbon footprint.<br /><br />Embracing the questionable notions of carbon foot prints is potentially a backfire. There's also far worse things to worry about. Microplastics and xeno-estrogens more specifically but that's by the by for the main goal; which is preservation of indigenous people and their cultures and customs.<br /><br />\"Reduce global consumption. Save the environment. Net zero immigration now!\" etc.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618581618734407694/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1519677584818835468",
"published": "2023-06-25T12:16:09+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Hijacking Their Propaganda.\n\nI've wondered for a while if there's a way to hijack some of the WEF agitpro and I think there's a fairly strong case to made for stealing the \"net zero\" phrase.\n\nMass immigration is an objective problem in western nations. It erodes local cultures and customs, destroys property values and stagnates wages. These are not just my opinions, these are facts as stated by the Bank of England.\n\nIt would be interesting to see the impact if we were to start referring to lowering rates of immigration as \"net zero immigration\".\n\nFirstly a \"same in same out\" approach would drastically cut the rate at which we see it happening. Down from 1million a year to around 200-300k. Still too much but a large step down. More importantly because it's the \"same in same out\" model that \"net zero\" uses it could be touted by use of other agitprop phrases: \"Sustainable immigration\", \"smart immigration\" etc. If they want to talk about \"climate refugees\", why not use other buzzwords for reference in the opposite direction?\n\nUsing the \"net zero\" rhetoric also highlights one of the star darlings of WEF and the lefts position. First world nations consume more and produce more CO2 than third world countries. Assuming you think this is bad, then moving third worlders to the first world would drastically increase their consumption and thus carbon footprint.\n\nEmbracing the questionable notions of carbon foot prints is potentially a backfire. There's also far worse things to worry about. Microplastics and xeno-estrogens more specifically but that's by the by for the main goal; which is preservation of indigenous people and their cultures and customs.\n\n\"Reduce global consumption. Save the environment. Net zero immigration now!\" etc.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1071748957970898948/https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618581618734407694/entities/urn:activity:1519677584818835468/like"
}
],
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1071748957970898948/liked",
"partOf": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1071748957970898948/likedoutbox"
}