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/1123284709166555142",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/entities/urn:activity:1130632681188970496",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142",
"content": "The below resignation letter from former The New York Times editor Bari Weiss is powerful and bang on the money!<br /><br />Have a read:<br /><br />Dear A.G.,<br /><br />It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times. <br /><br />I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.<br /><br />I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.<br /><br />But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.<br /><br />Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.<br /><br />My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.<br /><br />There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong. <br /><br />I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.<br /><br />Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.<br /><br />What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets. <br /><br />Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.<br /><br />It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati. <br /><br />The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.<br /><br />Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry. <br /><br />Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.<br /><br />All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.<br /><br />For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper. <br /><br />None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”<br /><br />Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them. <br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Bari",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1130632681188970496",
"published": "2020-07-16T22:50:36+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "The below resignation letter from former The New York Times editor Bari Weiss is powerful and bang on the money!\n\nHave a read:\n\nDear A.G.,\n\nIt is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times. \n\nI joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.\n\nI was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.\n\nBut the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.\n\nTwitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.\n\nMy own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.\n\nThere are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong. \n\nI do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.\n\nPart of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.\n\nWhat rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets. \n\nOp-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.\n\nIt took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati. \n\nThe paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.\n\nEven now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry. \n\nOr perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.\n\nAll this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.\n\nFor these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper. \n\nNone of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”\n\nOchs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them. \n\nSincerely,\n\nBari",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/entities/urn:activity:1130632681188970496/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/entities/urn:activity:1129562070320340992",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142",
"content": "<br />Thanks in advance for tuning in. Today I had a man to man with my good mate Paul McLoughlin. Paul shares some great insights around the value of daily practice, the importance of your environment, the power of a good woman, the importance of being open to learning, and much more!<br /><br />I wanted to start episode #1 chatting with Paul about some of the problems that exist for men in our society, whether or not anyone has found solutions to the problems, what areas need focus, who we can learn from, some of the most interesting parts of our journey so far, and get a rundown of Paul's new project to create a mens support group called More Than Warriors. I hope you enjoy it!<br /><br /><a href=\"https://youtu.be/c3wilIchMA0\" target=\"_blank\">https://youtu.be/c3wilIchMA0</a><br /><br />Here's the link to the MTW website: <a href=\"https://www.morethanwarriors.com.au\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.morethanwarriors.com.au</a><br /><br />Come and follow along with Fathers Rising on social media:<br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.instagram.com/fathersrisi\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.instagram.com/fathersrisi</a>...<br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/fathersrisin\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.facebook.com/fathersrisin</a>...<br /><br /><a href=\"https://twitter.com/fathersrisingup\" target=\"_blank\">https://twitter.com/fathersrisingup</a><br /><br /><a href=\"https://parler.com/profile/fathersris\" target=\"_blank\">https://parler.com/profile/fathersris</a>...<br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.minds.com/fathersrising/\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.minds.com/fathersrising/</a><br /><br /><a href=\"https://gab.com/FathersRising\" target=\"_blank\">https://gab.com/FathersRising</a><br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1129562070320340992",
"published": "2020-07-13T23:56:23+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "\nThanks in advance for tuning in. Today I had a man to man with my good mate Paul McLoughlin. Paul shares some great insights around the value of daily practice, the importance of your environment, the power of a good woman, the importance of being open to learning, and much more!\n\nI wanted to start episode #1 chatting with Paul about some of the problems that exist for men in our society, whether or not anyone has found solutions to the problems, what areas need focus, who we can learn from, some of the most interesting parts of our journey so far, and get a rundown of Paul's new project to create a mens support group called More Than Warriors. I hope you enjoy it!\n\nhttps://youtu.be/c3wilIchMA0\n\nHere's the link to the MTW website: https://www.morethanwarriors.com.au\n\nCome and follow along with Fathers Rising on social media:\n\nhttps://www.instagram.com/fathersrisi...\n\nhttps://www.facebook.com/fathersrisin...\n\nhttps://twitter.com/fathersrisingup\n\nhttps://parler.com/profile/fathersris...\n\nhttps://www.minds.com/fathersrising/\n\nhttps://gab.com/FathersRising\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/entities/urn:activity:1129562070320340992/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/entities/urn:activity:1128084840983261184",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142",
"content": "\"Conclusion:<br />The evidence to support the safety of homebirth for low risk women attended by professionally educated midwives in well-integrated settings is now very convincing. Perhaps we need to ask: is hospital birth safe or sustainable for low risk women in developed and developing nations? To go down this path, we need to change the embedded narrative, to embrace a definition of safety that women instinctively understand and strive for, including physical, psychological, social, cultural and spiritual safety. It is time we recognized the need for all the professional and maternity consumer groups to unite and agree on the central principles needed to ensure women have safe options when they choose their place of birth, whatever that choice may be.\"<br /><br />Not much more I can add to that. Published by The Lancet:<br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(19)30142-7/fulltext\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(19)30142-7/fulltext</a> ",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1128084840983261184",
"published": "2020-07-09T22:06:23+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "\"Conclusion:\nThe evidence to support the safety of homebirth for low risk women attended by professionally educated midwives in well-integrated settings is now very convincing. Perhaps we need to ask: is hospital birth safe or sustainable for low risk women in developed and developing nations? To go down this path, we need to change the embedded narrative, to embrace a definition of safety that women instinctively understand and strive for, including physical, psychological, social, cultural and spiritual safety. It is time we recognized the need for all the professional and maternity consumer groups to unite and agree on the central principles needed to ensure women have safe options when they choose their place of birth, whatever that choice may be.\"\n\nNot much more I can add to that. Published by The Lancet:\n\nhttps://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(19)30142-7/fulltext ",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/entities/urn:activity:1128084840983261184/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/entities/urn:activity:1127347646958309376",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142",
"content": "Three Sex Abusers/Traffickers Down: Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell<br />Q<br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=QAnon\" title=\"#QAnon\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#QAnon</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=QArmy\" title=\"#QArmy\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#QArmy</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=TheGreatAwakening\" title=\"#TheGreatAwakening\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#TheGreatAwakening</a> ",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1127347646958309376",
"published": "2020-07-07T21:17:02+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Three Sex Abusers/Traffickers Down: Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell\nQ\n\n#QAnon #QArmy #TheGreatAwakening ",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/entities/urn:activity:1127347646958309376/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/entities/urn:activity:1127314144365850624",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142",
"content": "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many of the world’s constitutions and human rights laws assert that everyone has:<br /><br />*the right to liberty<br />*the right to freedom of movement<br />*the right to privacy<br />*the right to freedom of conscience and speech<br />*the right to freedom of association and assembly with others of your own choosing<br />*the right to work, and <br />*the right to suffer no discrimination in those rights<br /> <br /><a href=\"https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html</a><br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=MelbourneCovidPrisons\" title=\"#MelbourneCovidPrisons\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#MelbourneCovidPrisons</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=MelbourneProtests\" title=\"#MelbourneProtests\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#MelbourneProtests</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=HumanRights\" title=\"#HumanRights\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#HumanRights</a> ",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1127314144365850624",
"published": "2020-07-07T19:03:55+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many of the world’s constitutions and human rights laws assert that everyone has:\n\n*the right to liberty\n*the right to freedom of movement\n*the right to privacy\n*the right to freedom of conscience and speech\n*the right to freedom of association and assembly with others of your own choosing\n*the right to work, and \n*the right to suffer no discrimination in those rights\n \nhttps://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html\n\n#MelbourneCovidPrisons #MelbourneProtests #HumanRights ",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/entities/urn:activity:1127314144365850624/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/entities/urn:activity:1123424466744823808",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142",
"content": "COVID-19 Facts from the Frontline<br /><br />A panel of doctors, M.D's, and a Nobel Prize winner unmask the science you aren’t hearing on TV.<br /><br />PANELISTS INCLUDE:<br /><br /> Dr. Michael Levitt, PhD, Nobel Prize – Chemistry, Professor of Structural Biology, Stanford<br /> Dr. Eran Bendavid, M.D. Associate Professor of Medicine, Stanford University<br /> Dr. Michael Roizen, M.D., Chief Wellness Officer Emeritus, Cleveland Clinic<br /> Dr. Alan Preston, Sc.D, Former Professor of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Texas A&M<br /> Senator Scott Jensen, M.D., Family Physician (R-Minnesota)<br /> Dr. Dan Erickson, M.D., Co-Owner, Accelerated Urgent Care<br /> Dr. Artin Massihi, M.D., Co-Owner, Accelerated Urgent Care<br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.tonyrobbins.com/podcasts/covid-19-facts-from-the-frontline/\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.tonyrobbins.com/podcasts/covid-19-facts-from-the-frontline/</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1123424466744823808",
"published": "2020-06-27T01:27:43+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "COVID-19 Facts from the Frontline\n\nA panel of doctors, M.D's, and a Nobel Prize winner unmask the science you aren’t hearing on TV.\n\nPANELISTS INCLUDE:\n\n Dr. Michael Levitt, PhD, Nobel Prize – Chemistry, Professor of Structural Biology, Stanford\n Dr. Eran Bendavid, M.D. Associate Professor of Medicine, Stanford University\n Dr. Michael Roizen, M.D., Chief Wellness Officer Emeritus, Cleveland Clinic\n Dr. Alan Preston, Sc.D, Former Professor of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Texas A&M\n Senator Scott Jensen, M.D., Family Physician (R-Minnesota)\n Dr. Dan Erickson, M.D., Co-Owner, Accelerated Urgent Care\n Dr. Artin Massihi, M.D., Co-Owner, Accelerated Urgent Care\n\nhttps://www.tonyrobbins.com/podcasts/covid-19-facts-from-the-frontline/",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/entities/urn:activity:1123424466744823808/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/entities/urn:activity:1123301740528320512",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142",
"content": "Reminder, there is nothing \"World\" about the World Health Organisation.<br /><br />Bill Gates is the largest funder of the World Health Organisation, after the US Government stopped their funding of the organization after its failures during this crisis. Bill Gates has given the WHO billions of dollars both directly and indirectly. The indirectly part is where it’s really fascinating, but first… The largest funders, and by default those with the largest influence over its policies, include of course our beloved Bill and his \"foundation\" on top, The GAVI Alliance (funded by Mr Gates), The National Philanthropic Trust (again funded by Gates), and Rotary International (yep also funded by Bill Gates). There’s also a couple of the wealthier countries of the world including the UK, Germany and Japan who all give substantial donations, however you can see who clearly dominates the funding of the organization, directly through his foundation, and indirectly through the other groups he funds who forward Bill’s money on for him. Why many people believe the WHO is a true representation of the world and not working on any particular agenda is understandable. The name itself is confusing, the media hypes them up all the time, and when you look at the donations and see the names of many different organisations, you can be forgiven for thinking that there isn’t any one person with so much influence, until you look a little deeper that is. Also important to remember is the fact that the WHO are the ones who told us on January 14 that there was “no clear evidence of human to human transmission of the novel corona virus”, they stand accused of working with China in an attempt to conceal the outbreak, they got caught advising medical boards around the world to fraudulently state COVID-19 as the cause of death on death certificates even when it was not what actually killed most people, and they are now being forced under pressure to conduct an independent review into their handling of this crisis because it was so bad. After all of their miscommunications and information changing, The WHO praised China on its handling of this crisis, locking down their citizens, often in brutal ways, spying on and monitoring them 24/7, and violently dealing with any citizen who didn’t follow the orders, and people seemed to parrot what the WHO said. Can you imagine another time before 2020 where anyone would have uttered the words “hey we should copy what China did on that”? Me neither! Does the WHO sound like a good place to invest your money into? Well the answer again is yes if what you’re wanting to achieve is power and control over people’s lives, so Bill Gates gives them $billions.<br /><br />People need to wake up before any more permanent damage is handed out to innocent children around the world.<br /><br />Details of financial grants from The Gates Foundation (where Bill \"donates\" his Microsoft money to avoid tax and retain control over it) to The World Health Organisation and others: <a href=\"https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1123301740528320512",
"published": "2020-06-26T17:20:03+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Reminder, there is nothing \"World\" about the World Health Organisation.\n\nBill Gates is the largest funder of the World Health Organisation, after the US Government stopped their funding of the organization after its failures during this crisis. Bill Gates has given the WHO billions of dollars both directly and indirectly. The indirectly part is where it’s really fascinating, but first… The largest funders, and by default those with the largest influence over its policies, include of course our beloved Bill and his \"foundation\" on top, The GAVI Alliance (funded by Mr Gates), The National Philanthropic Trust (again funded by Gates), and Rotary International (yep also funded by Bill Gates). There’s also a couple of the wealthier countries of the world including the UK, Germany and Japan who all give substantial donations, however you can see who clearly dominates the funding of the organization, directly through his foundation, and indirectly through the other groups he funds who forward Bill’s money on for him. Why many people believe the WHO is a true representation of the world and not working on any particular agenda is understandable. The name itself is confusing, the media hypes them up all the time, and when you look at the donations and see the names of many different organisations, you can be forgiven for thinking that there isn’t any one person with so much influence, until you look a little deeper that is. Also important to remember is the fact that the WHO are the ones who told us on January 14 that there was “no clear evidence of human to human transmission of the novel corona virus”, they stand accused of working with China in an attempt to conceal the outbreak, they got caught advising medical boards around the world to fraudulently state COVID-19 as the cause of death on death certificates even when it was not what actually killed most people, and they are now being forced under pressure to conduct an independent review into their handling of this crisis because it was so bad. After all of their miscommunications and information changing, The WHO praised China on its handling of this crisis, locking down their citizens, often in brutal ways, spying on and monitoring them 24/7, and violently dealing with any citizen who didn’t follow the orders, and people seemed to parrot what the WHO said. Can you imagine another time before 2020 where anyone would have uttered the words “hey we should copy what China did on that”? Me neither! Does the WHO sound like a good place to invest your money into? Well the answer again is yes if what you’re wanting to achieve is power and control over people’s lives, so Bill Gates gives them $billions.\n\nPeople need to wake up before any more permanent damage is handed out to innocent children around the world.\n\nDetails of financial grants from The Gates Foundation (where Bill \"donates\" his Microsoft money to avoid tax and retain control over it) to The World Health Organisation and others: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/entities/urn:activity:1123301740528320512/activity"
}
],
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/outbox",
"partOf": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1123284709166555142/outboxoutbox"
}