ActivityPub Viewer

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.

Open in browser →
{ "@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams", "type": "OrderedCollectionPage", "orderedItems": [ { "type": "Create", "actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/621003116212396043", "object": { "type": "Note", "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/621003116212396043/entities/urn:activity:804887161448423424", "attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/621003116212396043", "content": "We, the people of New Hampshire, need to come to terms with the reality of the laws regarding narcotics, recreational drug use, and their effect on our local communities. We often sleep well knowing our police departments are doing everything they can do to keep dangerous drugs and criminals off of our streets, yet, in Governor Sununu’s words, “we’re in the middle of the biggest drug crises the state has ever seen,” and while lawmakers are scrambling to create tougher laws to dissuade the use of said drugs, the situation gets worse and worse from year to year. There is a marked reason for this: maintaining legislation against non-violent behavior creates criminals of people who are otherwise minding their own business and creates a market where criminal enterprises thrive.<br /><br />The Governor, along with many influential lawmakers rightly connect the legalization of marijuana use and the opioid epidemic, but wrongly assume that the use of one encourages the other – as a matter of fact, it is tougher laws and higher penalties that create an atmosphere for violence and abuse. Simple market economics prove out – if you increase both the risk and the rarity of a product, you increase its value and demand. This provides those with the means to facilitate the distribution and sale of illegal drugs the ability to make massive amounts of profits, and along with those profits comes the necessity to protect them through any means conceivable. Meanwhile, if caught, marijuana users could face up to a year per offense depending on quantity and sellers could face up to twenty years on their first offense – and that isn’t taking into account other drug offenses. To put that into perspective, a new father, unable to find work for whatever reason, if caught trying to raise money for diapers and rent by selling five pounds of marijuana would have to forego fatherhood until his newborn son is twenty years old.<br /><br /> When we talk about equality, we need to grasp the fact that these laws don’t affect all of us equally. The statistics for non-violent incarceration is staggeringly on the side of low-income citizens, and more specifically African Americans. One cannot begin a discussion about fixing the problems within our communities, in New Hampshire or anywhere else, without first identifying the government’s culpability in creating a solution to a problem that was nonexistent, a solution which has become a problem that has gotten so out of hand that it has left millions imprisoned, hundreds of thousands dead, and countless lives wrecked in its path.<br /><br />In the meantime, NH residents are fronting millions of dollars to the State, charging them with fixing the drug epidemic, and yet their solutions are coming up fruitless. Perhaps, rather than spending millions of dollars on enforcing laws against plants, we should invest that money heavily into drug rehabilitation, into charities that have proven their ability to affect real change, and put that money back into the pocket of the people who run and sponsor such organizations. This model has been used successfully in countries like Portugal, where chronic drug use is considered a disease rather than a crime. Sometimes it’s less law – the impersonal hand we use to crush wrongdoing, instead of grace, which requires some understanding and empathy for our fellow humans - that will make the biggest difference. After all, what epidemic did we ever cure by calling it illegal?<br /><br />Robb Goodell – Rochester, NH<br /><br />Libertarian Party of New Hampshire: The Party of Humanity", "to": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public" ], "cc": [ "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/621003116212396043/followers" ], "tag": [], "url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/804887161448423424", "published": "2018-01-30T01:34:13+00:00", "source": { "content": "We, the people of New Hampshire, need to come to terms with the reality of the laws regarding narcotics, recreational drug use, and their effect on our local communities. We often sleep well knowing our police departments are doing everything they can do to keep dangerous drugs and criminals off of our streets, yet, in Governor Sununu’s words, “we’re in the middle of the biggest drug crises the state has ever seen,” and while lawmakers are scrambling to create tougher laws to dissuade the use of said drugs, the situation gets worse and worse from year to year. There is a marked reason for this: maintaining legislation against non-violent behavior creates criminals of people who are otherwise minding their own business and creates a market where criminal enterprises thrive.\n\nThe Governor, along with many influential lawmakers rightly connect the legalization of marijuana use and the opioid epidemic, but wrongly assume that the use of one encourages the other – as a matter of fact, it is tougher laws and higher penalties that create an atmosphere for violence and abuse. Simple market economics prove out – if you increase both the risk and the rarity of a product, you increase its value and demand. This provides those with the means to facilitate the distribution and sale of illegal drugs the ability to make massive amounts of profits, and along with those profits comes the necessity to protect them through any means conceivable. Meanwhile, if caught, marijuana users could face up to a year per offense depending on quantity and sellers could face up to twenty years on their first offense – and that isn’t taking into account other drug offenses. To put that into perspective, a new father, unable to find work for whatever reason, if caught trying to raise money for diapers and rent by selling five pounds of marijuana would have to forego fatherhood until his newborn son is twenty years old.\n\n When we talk about equality, we need to grasp the fact that these laws don’t affect all of us equally. The statistics for non-violent incarceration is staggeringly on the side of low-income citizens, and more specifically African Americans. One cannot begin a discussion about fixing the problems within our communities, in New Hampshire or anywhere else, without first identifying the government’s culpability in creating a solution to a problem that was nonexistent, a solution which has become a problem that has gotten so out of hand that it has left millions imprisoned, hundreds of thousands dead, and countless lives wrecked in its path.\n\nIn the meantime, NH residents are fronting millions of dollars to the State, charging them with fixing the drug epidemic, and yet their solutions are coming up fruitless. Perhaps, rather than spending millions of dollars on enforcing laws against plants, we should invest that money heavily into drug rehabilitation, into charities that have proven their ability to affect real change, and put that money back into the pocket of the people who run and sponsor such organizations. This model has been used successfully in countries like Portugal, where chronic drug use is considered a disease rather than a crime. Sometimes it’s less law – the impersonal hand we use to crush wrongdoing, instead of grace, which requires some understanding and empathy for our fellow humans - that will make the biggest difference. After all, what epidemic did we ever cure by calling it illegal?\n\nRobb Goodell – Rochester, NH\n\nLibertarian Party of New Hampshire: The Party of Humanity", "mediaType": "text/plain" } }, "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/621003116212396043/entities/urn:activity:804887161448423424/activity" }, { "type": "Create", "actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/621003116212396043", "object": { "type": "Note", "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/621003116212396043/entities/urn:activity:802996883333558272", "attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/621003116212396043", "content": "<br />School choice means better education<br /><br />Competition and consumer choice lead to innovation, better service, and cost reduction. Monopoly results in stagnation and inefficiency. This is as true in education as anywhere else. Parents should be able to choose the best schools for their children. They face a barrier, though: They’re already paying “tuition” to the public school system in the form of property taxes. Paying for two schools is beyond many people’s ability.<br /><br />Competition produces better results<br /><br />A simple answer to this problem is to give them a break on what they’re paying the public school system. If they decide to send their children to a different school from the government’s, they aren’t using the government’s resources. Why should they have to pay twice?<br /><br />Not every student learns best in the same environment. The more choices parents have, the better the odds are of their finding a school that works for their children. When tax burdens take away their choice, government schools don’t have a motive to improve. This isn’t the teachers’ fault; they do the best they can under the system. But a captive market means the economic pressure comes from the government, not from the parents or students. Very often, that means they have to dance to Washington’s tune.<br /><br />When parents have choices, schools have to do a good job or lose students. Parents will expect them to help students learn, not just sit at their desks.Schools that really educate will attract more students.<br /><br />What about the objections?<br /><br />The objections to school choice rest on mistaken ideas. Let’s look at some of them.<br /><br /> “Public money shouldn’t go to private schools.” That implies that the money you pay in taxes is “public money.” It says that what you earn belongs to the government, and anything it lets you keep is a generous gift. But it’s not the government that goes to work every day to earn your paycheck. Your money is yours. Reducing your taxes for a valid reason isn’t a welfare payment.<br /><br /> “Giving people tax breaks for school choice violates separation of church and state.” Separation of church and state means the government should strictly keep its hands off in matters of religion. It doesn’t allow the government to get in the way when people want to spend their money on a religious school. The laws should be strictly neutral and let people choose church-run or secular schools without interference.<br /><br /> “School choice means less money for the public school system.” This is the cry of an entrenched bureaucracy demanding its privilege. The point of education is to educate, not to keep money flowing into the government’s schools. If children learn better and less money needs to be spent on tax-supported schools, the people of New Hampshire win.<br /><br />Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman said: “Our goal is to have a system in which every family in the U.S. will be able to choose for itself the school to which its children go. We are far from that ultimate result. If we had that, a system of free choice, we would also have a system of competition, innovation, which would change the character of education.”<br /><br />That should be New Hampshire’s goal, too.<br /><br />— Gary McGath<br />", "to": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public" ], "cc": [ "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/621003116212396043/followers" ], "tag": [], "url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/802996883333558272", "published": "2018-01-24T20:22:55+00:00", "source": { "content": "\nSchool choice means better education\n\nCompetition and consumer choice lead to innovation, better service, and cost reduction. Monopoly results in stagnation and inefficiency. This is as true in education as anywhere else. Parents should be able to choose the best schools for their children. They face a barrier, though: They’re already paying “tuition” to the public school system in the form of property taxes. Paying for two schools is beyond many people’s ability.\n\nCompetition produces better results\n\nA simple answer to this problem is to give them a break on what they’re paying the public school system. If they decide to send their children to a different school from the government’s, they aren’t using the government’s resources. Why should they have to pay twice?\n\nNot every student learns best in the same environment. The more choices parents have, the better the odds are of their finding a school that works for their children. When tax burdens take away their choice, government schools don’t have a motive to improve. This isn’t the teachers’ fault; they do the best they can under the system. But a captive market means the economic pressure comes from the government, not from the parents or students. Very often, that means they have to dance to Washington’s tune.\n\nWhen parents have choices, schools have to do a good job or lose students. Parents will expect them to help students learn, not just sit at their desks.Schools that really educate will attract more students.\n\nWhat about the objections?\n\nThe objections to school choice rest on mistaken ideas. Let’s look at some of them.\n\n “Public money shouldn’t go to private schools.” That implies that the money you pay in taxes is “public money.” It says that what you earn belongs to the government, and anything it lets you keep is a generous gift. But it’s not the government that goes to work every day to earn your paycheck. Your money is yours. Reducing your taxes for a valid reason isn’t a welfare payment.\n\n “Giving people tax breaks for school choice violates separation of church and state.” Separation of church and state means the government should strictly keep its hands off in matters of religion. It doesn’t allow the government to get in the way when people want to spend their money on a religious school. The laws should be strictly neutral and let people choose church-run or secular schools without interference.\n\n “School choice means less money for the public school system.” This is the cry of an entrenched bureaucracy demanding its privilege. The point of education is to educate, not to keep money flowing into the government’s schools. If children learn better and less money needs to be spent on tax-supported schools, the people of New Hampshire win.\n\nNobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman said: “Our goal is to have a system in which every family in the U.S. will be able to choose for itself the school to which its children go. We are far from that ultimate result. If we had that, a system of free choice, we would also have a system of competition, innovation, which would change the character of education.”\n\nThat should be New Hampshire’s goal, too.\n\n— Gary McGath\n", "mediaType": "text/plain" } }, "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/621003116212396043/entities/urn:activity:802996883333558272/activity" }, { "type": "Create", "actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/621003116212396043", "object": { "type": "Note", "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/621003116212396043/entities/urn:activity:621004269524361216", "attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/621003116212396043", "content": "Hey everyone, we're a new regional libertarian party serving Rockingham & Strafford counties in New Hampshire. www.lpseacoast.org", "to": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public" ], "cc": [ "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/621003116212396043/followers" ], "tag": [], "url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/621004269524361216", "published": "2016-09-09T15:29:15+00:00", "source": { "content": "Hey everyone, we're a new regional libertarian party serving Rockingham & Strafford counties in New Hampshire. www.lpseacoast.org", "mediaType": "text/plain" } }, "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/621003116212396043/entities/urn:activity:621004269524361216/activity" } ], "id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/621003116212396043/outbox", "partOf": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/621003116212396043/outboxoutbox" }