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/618406530672238610",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:1660697563231162374",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"content": "<a href=\"https://www.minds.com/BrushKestrel/blog/how-do-the-economics-of-electric-car-ownership-work-1660697562287443973\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.minds.com/BrushKestrel/blog/how-do-the-economics-of-electric-car-ownership-work-1660697562287443973</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1660697563231162374",
"published": "2024-07-18T15:39:12+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "https://www.minds.com/BrushKestrel/blog/how-do-the-economics-of-electric-car-ownership-work-1660697562287443973",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:1660697563231162374/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:1510975004223737875",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"content": "One of YouGov's survey questions for today is \"Who do you think should own the rights to art generated by artificial intelligence?\" Possible answer are given for \"The user of the AI program, who gave it the prompt of what to create\", \"The creator of the AI program, who created the algorithm by which it operates\" and \"The public domain, because the AI made it but can't own the copyright\".<br /><br />Ummm... no, it's none of those. The correct answer is \"The owners of the copyrighted works on which the AI was trained\". They own the AI's output, as it is all derivative work.<br /><br />In some disciplines (like software development) it's possible to trace the source of significant chunks of what the AI produces to an individual author, and we can thus see what the original license the code was published under was. Spoiler alert: the AI does not meet those requirements in all but the most laissez-faire cases where it was given freely with no attribution clause, which is a tiny minority of content. In other, more artistic and less engineering disciplines, tracing back chunks to individual authors is far more difficult to do, but all of the output came from input somewhere, so it's still happening. All we can really say here is the ownership becomes much more collectivised than it was before.<br /><br />There's going to be a legal fight soon. And while it'll actually be a series of cases between two random companies about individual alleged infringements, the implications of the cases when seen collectively will be between the concept of using AI to produce publishable work, and the ability of copyright to prevent derivative works. One concept is not going to survive this. I'd be very surprised ultimately if Copyright beats AI in this fight -- I don't see that happening.<br /><br />We might soon be living in Peter F Hamilton's Post-10 world.<br /><br />He just got the date wrong ... by at least 13 years.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1510975004223737875",
"published": "2023-06-01T11:55:12+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "One of YouGov's survey questions for today is \"Who do you think should own the rights to art generated by artificial intelligence?\" Possible answer are given for \"The user of the AI program, who gave it the prompt of what to create\", \"The creator of the AI program, who created the algorithm by which it operates\" and \"The public domain, because the AI made it but can't own the copyright\".\n\nUmmm... no, it's none of those. The correct answer is \"The owners of the copyrighted works on which the AI was trained\". They own the AI's output, as it is all derivative work.\n\nIn some disciplines (like software development) it's possible to trace the source of significant chunks of what the AI produces to an individual author, and we can thus see what the original license the code was published under was. Spoiler alert: the AI does not meet those requirements in all but the most laissez-faire cases where it was given freely with no attribution clause, which is a tiny minority of content. In other, more artistic and less engineering disciplines, tracing back chunks to individual authors is far more difficult to do, but all of the output came from input somewhere, so it's still happening. All we can really say here is the ownership becomes much more collectivised than it was before.\n\nThere's going to be a legal fight soon. And while it'll actually be a series of cases between two random companies about individual alleged infringements, the implications of the cases when seen collectively will be between the concept of using AI to produce publishable work, and the ability of copyright to prevent derivative works. One concept is not going to survive this. I'd be very surprised ultimately if Copyright beats AI in this fight -- I don't see that happening.\n\nWe might soon be living in Peter F Hamilton's Post-10 world.\n\nHe just got the date wrong ... by at least 13 years.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:1510975004223737875/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:1209879342653493248",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"content": "<a href=\"https://www.minds.com/BrushKestrel/blog/false-positives-in-testing-1209879337536442368\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.minds.com/BrushKestrel/blog/false-positives-in-testing-1209879337536442368</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1209879342653493248",
"published": "2021-02-20T15:08:32+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "https://www.minds.com/BrushKestrel/blog/false-positives-in-testing-1209879337536442368",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:1209879342653493248/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:1197642915337039872",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"content": "How is the US to recover from it's current position?<br /><br />Half of the US think that they've just narrowly avoided a coup.<br /><br />They see an outgoing president contesting an election loss, refusing to recognise the results, and refusing to admit defeat. They've seen trusted media organisations tally up dozens if not hundreds of court challenges, and report a 100% failure rate. They've even seen his supporters illegally enter and occupy the Capitol building where the representatives and senators were certifying the election results. This all looks very convincing for their position, and none of it is objectively wrong.<br /><br />The other half think that they've just seen a coup happen in front of their eyes, and an illegitimate leader is a few days away from being sworn in.<br /><br />They see an election that showed enough red flags for illegitimacy that something is clearly up. They've seen all the challenges dismissed without consideration. State legislatures have thwarted discussion procedurally. Clocks have been run out rather than have important discussions. State and federal courtrooms have sought every angle to dismiss via technicalities, refusing to rule cases on merits. The double standards between the current situation and that of four years ago are very clear. This all looks very convincing for their position, and none of it is objectively wrong.<br /><br />How is this divide to be healed?<br /><br />Because ... I'm not seeing it any more. Two weeks ago I saw possible paths towards healing. I'm not seeing any left now.<br /><br />If your approach to this is to dismiss the opposing point of view as invalid, or to try to persuade them their facts are false, know that they aren't going to be persuaded. Healing from this point doesn't involve telling the other side they are dumb, or debating them around to your point of view. It doesn't involve \"educating\" anyone, particularly if that's phrased \"re-educating\".<br /><br />Ideas on a postcard. Or, you know, a comment...",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1197642915337039872",
"published": "2021-01-17T20:45:22+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "How is the US to recover from it's current position?\n\nHalf of the US think that they've just narrowly avoided a coup.\n\nThey see an outgoing president contesting an election loss, refusing to recognise the results, and refusing to admit defeat. They've seen trusted media organisations tally up dozens if not hundreds of court challenges, and report a 100% failure rate. They've even seen his supporters illegally enter and occupy the Capitol building where the representatives and senators were certifying the election results. This all looks very convincing for their position, and none of it is objectively wrong.\n\nThe other half think that they've just seen a coup happen in front of their eyes, and an illegitimate leader is a few days away from being sworn in.\n\nThey see an election that showed enough red flags for illegitimacy that something is clearly up. They've seen all the challenges dismissed without consideration. State legislatures have thwarted discussion procedurally. Clocks have been run out rather than have important discussions. State and federal courtrooms have sought every angle to dismiss via technicalities, refusing to rule cases on merits. The double standards between the current situation and that of four years ago are very clear. This all looks very convincing for their position, and none of it is objectively wrong.\n\nHow is this divide to be healed?\n\nBecause ... I'm not seeing it any more. Two weeks ago I saw possible paths towards healing. I'm not seeing any left now.\n\nIf your approach to this is to dismiss the opposing point of view as invalid, or to try to persuade them their facts are false, know that they aren't going to be persuaded. Healing from this point doesn't involve telling the other side they are dumb, or debating them around to your point of view. It doesn't involve \"educating\" anyone, particularly if that's phrased \"re-educating\".\n\nIdeas on a postcard. Or, you know, a comment...",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:1197642915337039872/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:1197522662646808576",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"content": "I just got done watching <a href=\"http://crossfire.movie\" target=\"_blank\">http://crossfire.movie</a> - interesting and poignant, but yet already so out of date.<br />It was obviously made to examine the main events of the time, but it feels now like it is focusing on just the prelude, the build-up.<br /><br />That feeling really started to become painfully apparent at 1:37:11, when it asks \"When is the last straw going to come when Americans are going to lose faith in the system the same way Antifa and BLM have?\". I had to stop it and go look up the actual release date. It was released on the 30th of December 2020.<br /><br />It feels like it needs a whole new section of the film since then, because things have evolved so much since then.<br /><br />When it then again at 1:30:00 started talking about what the awful outcome of bringing in the military (rather than just militarised police) could be, I couldn't get the images of the national guard occupying the Capitol out of my head. The sound of Tim Pool saying \"You don't tell the troops they are executing a coup, you just tell them to guard a government building and stop people coming in, because that sounds completely reasonable to them.\"<br /><br />I remind myself, this documentary was released 30th of December 2020.<br /><br />Despite all the calls to bring in the military over the past 6 months or so in response to the relentless rioting, the governors of the relevant states simply would not do so -- but, the moment the first hint of the other side of this one-sided conflict turns up, look how fast that changed.<br /><br />And then the movie goes on to talk about how there's a one sided civil war going on right now.<br /><br />Yeah... I definitely should not have left that in my \"Yeah, I'll watch that later\" list for so long.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1197522662646808576",
"published": "2021-01-17T12:47:31+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "I just got done watching http://crossfire.movie - interesting and poignant, but yet already so out of date.\nIt was obviously made to examine the main events of the time, but it feels now like it is focusing on just the prelude, the build-up.\n\nThat feeling really started to become painfully apparent at 1:37:11, when it asks \"When is the last straw going to come when Americans are going to lose faith in the system the same way Antifa and BLM have?\". I had to stop it and go look up the actual release date. It was released on the 30th of December 2020.\n\nIt feels like it needs a whole new section of the film since then, because things have evolved so much since then.\n\nWhen it then again at 1:30:00 started talking about what the awful outcome of bringing in the military (rather than just militarised police) could be, I couldn't get the images of the national guard occupying the Capitol out of my head. The sound of Tim Pool saying \"You don't tell the troops they are executing a coup, you just tell them to guard a government building and stop people coming in, because that sounds completely reasonable to them.\"\n\nI remind myself, this documentary was released 30th of December 2020.\n\nDespite all the calls to bring in the military over the past 6 months or so in response to the relentless rioting, the governors of the relevant states simply would not do so -- but, the moment the first hint of the other side of this one-sided conflict turns up, look how fast that changed.\n\nAnd then the movie goes on to talk about how there's a one sided civil war going on right now.\n\nYeah... I definitely should not have left that in my \"Yeah, I'll watch that later\" list for so long.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:1197522662646808576/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:1197460329349599232",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"content": "... And this is now another app that I have to install manually, and remember to update.<br /><br />Can we have an app feature in the non-store version to let us know when there's an app update available?<br /><br />Failing that, is there an account here that posts when update versions are uploaded, that I can follow? That would work almost as well...",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1197460329349599232",
"published": "2021-01-17T08:39:50+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "... And this is now another app that I have to install manually, and remember to update.\n\nCan we have an app feature in the non-store version to let us know when there's an app update available?\n\nFailing that, is there an account here that posts when update versions are uploaded, that I can follow? That would work almost as well...",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:1197460329349599232/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:1194987116802097152",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"content": "Example of doing it right: You're coming to the end of your fixed price deal in a couple of months. Let's write to you now and give you some options, including some existing-customer-only deals, and warn you that if you do nothing, your price may rise by just shy of 10%.<br /><br />Example of doing it wrong: You're coming to the end of your fixed price deal. Let's keep it quiet and see if you notice. If not, the first indication we'll give that this has happened is when your bill jumps by about 40%, and you have to contact us to find out what the hell happened.<br /><br />Come on guys, this stuff can be automated. It's not like the first company sent me a handwritten letter, it's all just database automated messaging.<br /><br />--<br /><br />Company #1 may get a renewal. But even if I find a better deal elsewhere, I'll still give them a courtesy call before I depart.<br /><br />Company #2 will find out I'm leaving when their replacement contacts them to take my service over.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1194987116802097152",
"published": "2021-01-10T12:52:10+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Example of doing it right: You're coming to the end of your fixed price deal in a couple of months. Let's write to you now and give you some options, including some existing-customer-only deals, and warn you that if you do nothing, your price may rise by just shy of 10%.\n\nExample of doing it wrong: You're coming to the end of your fixed price deal. Let's keep it quiet and see if you notice. If not, the first indication we'll give that this has happened is when your bill jumps by about 40%, and you have to contact us to find out what the hell happened.\n\nCome on guys, this stuff can be automated. It's not like the first company sent me a handwritten letter, it's all just database automated messaging.\n\n--\n\nCompany #1 may get a renewal. But even if I find a better deal elsewhere, I'll still give them a courtesy call before I depart.\n\nCompany #2 will find out I'm leaving when their replacement contacts them to take my service over.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:1194987116802097152/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:1124451396158140416",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"content": "Internet Arguments 102 -- Understanding the dynamic of <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=BreastIsBest\" title=\"#BreastIsBest\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#BreastIsBest</a> vs <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=FedIsBest\" title=\"#FedIsBest\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#FedIsBest</a>, and how it immediately explains <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=BlackLivesMatter\" title=\"#BlackLivesMatter\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#BlackLivesMatter</a> vs <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=AllLivesMatter\" title=\"#AllLivesMatter\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#AllLivesMatter</a>.<br /><br />On the English speaking internet, saying # BreastIsBest and meaning \"Human milk is best for human babies, and should be used as first preference if available\", is like saying # MurderIsWrong. No-one disagrees. It is an opinion so universally held that it's not worth even having the debate. I mean, there's some of China's new middle class for whom formula-feeding a baby (particularly with grey-market imported formula) is an economic status symbol. But they aren't in this argument. They aren't talking English, and China won't allow them on this part of the internet anyway.<br /><br />So there's zero people you can possibly reach with this hashtag slactivism that would actually benefit from it.<br /><br />In cases like this, what happens is that within the activist group, you'll have a subset of people who espouse some rather more controversial opinions. So there's a sizeable and vocal group of people who seem to have taken the position that should mum not have enough milk, they would rather *starve* the baby than let so much of a drop of formula pass its lips. No I'm not kidding, yes they genuinely are out there, there's rather a lot of them and they are rather loud. And thus # BreastIsBest does not mean what at first glance you think it might mean -- it takes on the only contested position espoused by it's advocates, which is that one.<br /><br />The response to this is obvious -- # FedIsBest. Use breastmilk where it is available, but if it isn't, please feed the baby *something*, don't starve the kid. This should be completely uncontroversial, right?<br /><br />But to people who either don't understand that literally no-one disagrees, or who are disingenuously deflecting from their advocacy for starving babies, anyone opposing # BreastIsBest has to be an agent of Big Pharma trying to persuade people to go and buy expensive baby formula.<br /><br />This then provides the appearance of an adversary, which can be used to reinforce the movement.<br /><br />When you understand this specific dynamic, it becomes obvious that it's also behind the # BlackLivesMatter versus # AllLivesMatter debate too.<br /><br />No-one participating in this debate actually believes that black lives don't matter, or even that black people should be discriminated against. Just like # BreastIsBest, to actually find that opinion you'd have to have the debate in another language, on another platform, or the other side of a giant firewall. But what you do have is a sizeable and vocal proportion who are espousing that *only* black lives should matter, or that black lives should matter *more*. Yes they are out there, yes in quantity, and yes they are loud. And just like with # FedIsBest, you have a natural reaction to *that* *specific* *subsection*. That reaction we know as # AllLivesMatter. Just like # FedIsBest is not a negation of # BreastIsBest, # AllLivesMatter is not a negation of # BlackLivesMatter. It is only a refutation of the specifically black supremacist parts of it.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1124451396158140416",
"published": "2020-06-29T21:28:24+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Internet Arguments 102 -- Understanding the dynamic of #BreastIsBest vs #FedIsBest, and how it immediately explains #BlackLivesMatter vs #AllLivesMatter.\n\nOn the English speaking internet, saying # BreastIsBest and meaning \"Human milk is best for human babies, and should be used as first preference if available\", is like saying # MurderIsWrong. No-one disagrees. It is an opinion so universally held that it's not worth even having the debate. I mean, there's some of China's new middle class for whom formula-feeding a baby (particularly with grey-market imported formula) is an economic status symbol. But they aren't in this argument. They aren't talking English, and China won't allow them on this part of the internet anyway.\n\nSo there's zero people you can possibly reach with this hashtag slactivism that would actually benefit from it.\n\nIn cases like this, what happens is that within the activist group, you'll have a subset of people who espouse some rather more controversial opinions. So there's a sizeable and vocal group of people who seem to have taken the position that should mum not have enough milk, they would rather *starve* the baby than let so much of a drop of formula pass its lips. No I'm not kidding, yes they genuinely are out there, there's rather a lot of them and they are rather loud. And thus # BreastIsBest does not mean what at first glance you think it might mean -- it takes on the only contested position espoused by it's advocates, which is that one.\n\nThe response to this is obvious -- # FedIsBest. Use breastmilk where it is available, but if it isn't, please feed the baby *something*, don't starve the kid. This should be completely uncontroversial, right?\n\nBut to people who either don't understand that literally no-one disagrees, or who are disingenuously deflecting from their advocacy for starving babies, anyone opposing # BreastIsBest has to be an agent of Big Pharma trying to persuade people to go and buy expensive baby formula.\n\nThis then provides the appearance of an adversary, which can be used to reinforce the movement.\n\nWhen you understand this specific dynamic, it becomes obvious that it's also behind the # BlackLivesMatter versus # AllLivesMatter debate too.\n\nNo-one participating in this debate actually believes that black lives don't matter, or even that black people should be discriminated against. Just like # BreastIsBest, to actually find that opinion you'd have to have the debate in another language, on another platform, or the other side of a giant firewall. But what you do have is a sizeable and vocal proportion who are espousing that *only* black lives should matter, or that black lives should matter *more*. Yes they are out there, yes in quantity, and yes they are loud. And just like with # FedIsBest, you have a natural reaction to *that* *specific* *subsection*. That reaction we know as # AllLivesMatter. Just like # FedIsBest is not a negation of # BreastIsBest, # AllLivesMatter is not a negation of # BlackLivesMatter. It is only a refutation of the specifically black supremacist parts of it.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:1124451396158140416/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:961010566436491264",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"content": "It's interesting to observe the huge distinction between remainers and brexiteers in how they view the concept of \"open borders\".<br /><br />Remainers see it in terms of themselves crossing borders while going to other places.<br />This has several implications.<br />It reveals personal affluence (poor people, who don't cross international borders regularly, aren't affected by this).<br />It reveals selfishness (concern primarily over how a change will impact themselves and their lifestyle, rather than any impact on the wider community).<br />It also hints at non-systemic thinking, featuring either false \"fixed points\" (assuming something can never change when it clearly can, and possibly already is), or lack of consideration/concern for such widespread changes.<br /><br />Brexiteers typically see it in terms of other people coming in. And generally in large enough numbers to change what \"here\" is.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/961010566436491264",
"published": "2019-04-05T21:12:53+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "It's interesting to observe the huge distinction between remainers and brexiteers in how they view the concept of \"open borders\".\n\nRemainers see it in terms of themselves crossing borders while going to other places.\nThis has several implications.\nIt reveals personal affluence (poor people, who don't cross international borders regularly, aren't affected by this).\nIt reveals selfishness (concern primarily over how a change will impact themselves and their lifestyle, rather than any impact on the wider community).\nIt also hints at non-systemic thinking, featuring either false \"fixed points\" (assuming something can never change when it clearly can, and possibly already is), or lack of consideration/concern for such widespread changes.\n\nBrexiteers typically see it in terms of other people coming in. And generally in large enough numbers to change what \"here\" is.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:961010566436491264/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:952294149505097728",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"content": "So, May's awful vassal-state deal has been defeated. Again.<br /><br />Tomorrow there will be a vote on leaving on WTO terms.<br /><br />What do we think the chances of that succeeding are?<br /><br />I don't think enough of our MPs have sufficient testicular fortitude (as Mr Saad would put it) to vote for WTO terms.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/952294149505097728",
"published": "2019-03-12T19:56:58+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "So, May's awful vassal-state deal has been defeated. Again.\n\nTomorrow there will be a vote on leaving on WTO terms.\n\nWhat do we think the chances of that succeeding are?\n\nI don't think enough of our MPs have sufficient testicular fortitude (as Mr Saad would put it) to vote for WTO terms.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:952294149505097728/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:948857387129704448",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"content": "There's nothing wrong with encouraging everyone to play sport from a fitness and health perspective, no matter at what level they are able to do so. But business success is a totally different ball game, so to speak...<br /><br />www.xyz.net.au/cargo-cult-womens-sport/",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/948857387129704448",
"published": "2019-03-03T08:20:30+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "There's nothing wrong with encouraging everyone to play sport from a fitness and health perspective, no matter at what level they are able to do so. But business success is a totally different ball game, so to speak...\n\nwww.xyz.net.au/cargo-cult-womens-sport/",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:948857387129704448/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:948855847179931648",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"content": "Interesting take on the phrase \"far right\" and why it's being misused to the point of uselessness.<br /><br /><a href=\"https://beinglibertarian.com/misconceptions-far-right/\" target=\"_blank\">https://beinglibertarian.com/misconceptions-far-right/</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/948855847179931648",
"published": "2019-03-03T08:14:22+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Interesting take on the phrase \"far right\" and why it's being misused to the point of uselessness.\n\nhttps://beinglibertarian.com/misconceptions-far-right/",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:948855847179931648/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:945437768693030912",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610",
"content": "Should there be a by-election when an MP changes party?<br /><br />There's a big debate about this recently, and it comes down to one question.<br /><br />What exactly are we voting for?<br /><br />I mean, do we actually vote for an individual representative, or for the party they stand under?<br /><br />If people are voting for the candidate, they are still represented by that candidate no matter what party the candidate stands under or moves to, so there should be no need for a by-election.<br /><br />If people are primarily voting for the party, then absolutely there should be a by-election if the candidate changes party for any reason, because that change totally invalidates the vote.<br /><br />The implications go way beyond just that though. If we are voting for the party, then it's not really a local by-election we need -- we should move away from the 'local representative' concept entirely, likely by adopting a form of Proportional Representation. I'm not sure what the PR version of a by-election is, but whatever that is, that's what it should be.<br /><br />If we are voting for the candidate as a representative, then we should have a way of specifying our preferences for candidates, using something like Alternative Vote.<br /><br /><br />However, I suspect neither of these things are actually the case. In practice, we don't vote for a representative, nor for a party. We vote *against* a party. The very existence of websites to calculate how to best oppose a party exposes what's actually going on -- most people vote against whichever major party they most dislike by voting for their main competition. This leaves us with the people in charge of our country being selected on the basis that they are marginally less bad than the other people with the *really* bad opinions that we *especially* didn't want. And it also locks us into a two-party system, where a third option cannot gain traction.<br /><br />While that's actually quite damning, it also explains perfectly why more people vote on reality TV programmes compared to general elections. The voting system on these programmes matches the way people actually vote, which makes it intuitive and obvious. Each vote is cast in a negative fashion -- to show your displeasure with a specific candidate. It also works on a number of rounds, with a week between them and new information each week.<br /><br />Now ... how can we design our elections to capture that dynamic?",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/945437768693030912",
"published": "2019-02-21T21:52:09+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Should there be a by-election when an MP changes party?\n\nThere's a big debate about this recently, and it comes down to one question.\n\nWhat exactly are we voting for?\n\nI mean, do we actually vote for an individual representative, or for the party they stand under?\n\nIf people are voting for the candidate, they are still represented by that candidate no matter what party the candidate stands under or moves to, so there should be no need for a by-election.\n\nIf people are primarily voting for the party, then absolutely there should be a by-election if the candidate changes party for any reason, because that change totally invalidates the vote.\n\nThe implications go way beyond just that though. If we are voting for the party, then it's not really a local by-election we need -- we should move away from the 'local representative' concept entirely, likely by adopting a form of Proportional Representation. I'm not sure what the PR version of a by-election is, but whatever that is, that's what it should be.\n\nIf we are voting for the candidate as a representative, then we should have a way of specifying our preferences for candidates, using something like Alternative Vote.\n\n\nHowever, I suspect neither of these things are actually the case. In practice, we don't vote for a representative, nor for a party. We vote *against* a party. The very existence of websites to calculate how to best oppose a party exposes what's actually going on -- most people vote against whichever major party they most dislike by voting for their main competition. This leaves us with the people in charge of our country being selected on the basis that they are marginally less bad than the other people with the *really* bad opinions that we *especially* didn't want. And it also locks us into a two-party system, where a third option cannot gain traction.\n\nWhile that's actually quite damning, it also explains perfectly why more people vote on reality TV programmes compared to general elections. The voting system on these programmes matches the way people actually vote, which makes it intuitive and obvious. Each vote is cast in a negative fashion -- to show your displeasure with a specific candidate. It also works on a number of rounds, with a week between them and new information each week.\n\nNow ... how can we design our elections to capture that dynamic?",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/entities/urn:activity:945437768693030912/activity"
}
],
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/outbox",
"partOf": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/618406530672238610/outboxoutbox"
}