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/682581693328007182",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/682581693328007182/entities/urn:activity:702190204814893068",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/682581693328007182",
"content": "An Open Letter to Minds.com: What is your stance on lolicon/shotacon?<br /><br /><br />Dear Minds.com, ( <a class=\"u-url mention\" href=\"https://www.minds.com/ottman\" target=\"_blank\">@ottman</a> and whoever else feels addressed)<br />It has recently come to my attention that you’ve banned certain accounts for sharing depictions of minors in sexual situations. Can you please clarify whether those depictions were photographs/video footage or drawings/animations? Does this distinction even matter to you? I’m under the impression that it does not.<br /><br />It does matter to me:<br />I have absolutely no love for child porn. Those who produce, distribute or consume such vile recordings of child abuse should not only be banned from this site but also be pursued by the law as much as possible.<br />On stark contrast:<br />I find nothing wrong with lolicon. The production, distribution or consumption of DRAWINGS featuring minors in sexual situations does not involve any real child at any point and thus it may be a depiction but it’s not a recording of child abuse.<br /><br />It doesn’t matter who finds it disgusting, lolicon falls squarely under artistic expression. I find some things disgusting as well. I won’t ban scenes from splatter movies just because I don’t want to see people’s guts flying into my face, that doesn’t mean I get to ban it unless I can point to the person being harmed by the production, distribution or consumption of it. I’m afraid that a disgust reaction is not good enough.<br /><br />The only good reason for banning it would be if it was illegal in the United States, since that is where minds.com is based. This has been the explanation thus far and if it turns out that lolicon IS indeed illegal then I guess you were right in doing this. Let’s have a look…<br /> <a href=\"https://www.govinfo.gov/app/content/pkg/USCODE-2015-title18/html/USCODE-2015-title18-partI-chap110-sec2256.htm\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.govinfo.gov/app/content/pkg/USCODE-2015-title18/html/USCODE-2015-title18-partI-chap110-sec2256.htm</a> <br />It really doesn’t make it look like lolicon is illegal, indeed it looks like the law is intentionally addressing this point and clarifying what is and isn’t considered actual child porn.<br /><br /><br />I’m gonna level with you, Minds. I understand that this particular topic is one hell of a can of worms to address. You stand to gain nothing and either way you will alienate people. Ask yourself which will lose you more people:<br />Option A:<br />Ban lolicon on the grounds that it’s illegal, have it pointed out to you that in fact it is not illegal and alienate the advocates of free expression who understand that the hardest part of being for free expression is having to stand up for those who express things you personally find distasteful, abhorrent, vile, degenerate, reprehensible, negative adjective, negative adjective and more negative adjectives.<br />Option B:<br />Allow for lolicon to be posted, maybe decide on how to limit the visibility of it outside of the mature content system and the boosting approval reviews. This will alienate those who “don’t want to see that shit in their newsfeed” and land you several accusations of how much you are on the “dark side of the internet”.<br /><br />You can’t seriously tell me that this issue has never come up when discussing how best to make a platform that prides itself on free speech. Surely you understand how that principle works and why completely fictional artworks can not be censored.<br /><br />I hope you don’t want to open the floodgates towards censorship of offensive materials and I also hope that the fact that I’m subscribed to some of the accounts that were banned does not put me in danger of being banned myself.<br /><br />Will I be allowed to boost this very post? By all accounts, I’m a disgusting person after all. If not, then please do tell me which views are allowed to be promoted around here and which can not.<br /><br />Best regards, Pride.<br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/682581693328007182/followers"
],
"tag": [
{
"type": "Mention",
"href": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/100000000000000000",
"name": "@ottman"
}
],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/702190204814893068",
"published": "2017-04-21T16:13:10+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "An Open Letter to Minds.com: What is your stance on lolicon/shotacon?\n\n\nDear Minds.com, ( @ottman and whoever else feels addressed)\nIt has recently come to my attention that you’ve banned certain accounts for sharing depictions of minors in sexual situations. Can you please clarify whether those depictions were photographs/video footage or drawings/animations? Does this distinction even matter to you? I’m under the impression that it does not.\n\nIt does matter to me:\nI have absolutely no love for child porn. Those who produce, distribute or consume such vile recordings of child abuse should not only be banned from this site but also be pursued by the law as much as possible.\nOn stark contrast:\nI find nothing wrong with lolicon. The production, distribution or consumption of DRAWINGS featuring minors in sexual situations does not involve any real child at any point and thus it may be a depiction but it’s not a recording of child abuse.\n\nIt doesn’t matter who finds it disgusting, lolicon falls squarely under artistic expression. I find some things disgusting as well. I won’t ban scenes from splatter movies just because I don’t want to see people’s guts flying into my face, that doesn’t mean I get to ban it unless I can point to the person being harmed by the production, distribution or consumption of it. I’m afraid that a disgust reaction is not good enough.\n\nThe only good reason for banning it would be if it was illegal in the United States, since that is where minds.com is based. This has been the explanation thus far and if it turns out that lolicon IS indeed illegal then I guess you were right in doing this. Let’s have a look…\n https://www.govinfo.gov/app/content/pkg/USCODE-2015-title18/html/USCODE-2015-title18-partI-chap110-sec2256.htm \nIt really doesn’t make it look like lolicon is illegal, indeed it looks like the law is intentionally addressing this point and clarifying what is and isn’t considered actual child porn.\n\n\nI’m gonna level with you, Minds. I understand that this particular topic is one hell of a can of worms to address. You stand to gain nothing and either way you will alienate people. Ask yourself which will lose you more people:\nOption A:\nBan lolicon on the grounds that it’s illegal, have it pointed out to you that in fact it is not illegal and alienate the advocates of free expression who understand that the hardest part of being for free expression is having to stand up for those who express things you personally find distasteful, abhorrent, vile, degenerate, reprehensible, negative adjective, negative adjective and more negative adjectives.\nOption B:\nAllow for lolicon to be posted, maybe decide on how to limit the visibility of it outside of the mature content system and the boosting approval reviews. This will alienate those who “don’t want to see that shit in their newsfeed” and land you several accusations of how much you are on the “dark side of the internet”.\n\nYou can’t seriously tell me that this issue has never come up when discussing how best to make a platform that prides itself on free speech. Surely you understand how that principle works and why completely fictional artworks can not be censored.\n\nI hope you don’t want to open the floodgates towards censorship of offensive materials and I also hope that the fact that I’m subscribed to some of the accounts that were banned does not put me in danger of being banned myself.\n\nWill I be allowed to boost this very post? By all accounts, I’m a disgusting person after all. If not, then please do tell me which views are allowed to be promoted around here and which can not.\n\nBest regards, Pride.\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/682581693328007182/entities/urn:activity:702190204814893068/activity"
}
],
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/682581693328007182/outbox",
"partOf": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/682581693328007182/outboxoutbox"
}