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/719798624044720144",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1774678638701060096",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"content": "<a href=\"https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1774678638701060096\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1774678638701060096</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1774678638701060096",
"published": "2025-05-29T04:19:19+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1774678638701060096",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1774678638701060096/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1758718031171444736",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"content": "Hurr durr... Trump's dumb, he to stupid to know what he's done...<br /><br />Then there's the book he wrote 40 years ago about Tariffs (about the same time as this interview with Oprah Winfrey).<br /><br />youtube.com/shorts/18IafL7exOc",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1758718031171444736",
"published": "2025-04-15T03:17:34+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Hurr durr... Trump's dumb, he to stupid to know what he's done...\n\nThen there's the book he wrote 40 years ago about Tariffs (about the same time as this interview with Oprah Winfrey).\n\nyoutube.com/shorts/18IafL7exOc",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1758718031171444736/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1755393987595735040",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"content": "<a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1ACdTSRPN5/\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1ACdTSRPN5/</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1755393987595735040",
"published": "2025-04-05T23:09:00+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1ACdTSRPN5/",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1755393987595735040/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1754704096012541952",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"content": "Donald Trump’s political journey has been marked by a relentless barrage of allegations and investigations, none of which have ever resulted in proven charges of the core accusations leveled against him. From the outset of his 2016 campaign to the present day, malicious claims have been repeatedly and consistently thrown at Trump, often fueled by political opponents and amplified by media speculation. Despite the intensity and persistence of these attacks, no definitive evidence has ever substantiated the most serious allegations, such as collusion with Russia or other criminal conspiracies. This pattern of unproven accusations continues unabated into 2025, reflecting a sustained effort to tarnish his reputation without legal vindication.<br /><br />April 2016:<br />The Democratic National Committee (DNC) hired CrowdStrike to investigate a server breach, quickly pinning it on Russian hackers. This claim set the stage for a narrative of foreign interference that would soon target Trump—yet no direct link to him was ever proven.<br /><br />June–July 2016:<br />WikiLeaks released hacked DNC emails, amplifying suspicions of Russian meddling. The FBI launched \"Crossfire Hurricane\" to probe alleged Trump campaign ties to Russia, spurred by a vague tip from Australian diplomat Alexander Downer about campaign aide George Papadopoulos. This investigation began a multi-year saga, but no evidence of a criminal conspiracy with Trump ever emerged.<br /><br />September–October 2016:<br />The FBI received the Steele Dossier—unverified memos funded by the Clinton campaign and DNC via Fusion GPS—alleging ties between Trump and Russia. Based partly on this dubious document, a FISA warrant was issued to monitor Trump advisor Carter Page. Later scrutiny revealed the dossier’s flaws, and its claims about Trump remained unproven, casting doubt on the investigation’s foundation.<br /><br />January 2017:<br />BuzzFeed published the Steele Dossier, sparking a media frenzy despite its unverified nature. Intelligence agencies briefed Obama and Trump on it, but its allegations of Trump-Russia ties never held up under legal scrutiny.<br /><br />March–May 2017:<br />FBI Director James Comey confirmed the Russia probe, only to be fired by Trump in May over unrelated issues. This fueled speculation of obstruction, leading to Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. Yet, Mueller’s eventual findings failed to prove any conspiracy, leaving the malicious narrative dangling.<br /><br />July 2017:<br />Reports surfaced of a 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and a Russian lawyer promising \"dirt\" on Clinton. The meeting yielded nothing actionable, and no evidence tied it to a broader conspiracy, despite breathless media coverage.<br /><br />2018:<br />February 2018: Russian Indictments and Manafort Charges<br />Mueller indicted 13 Russians for election interference, but no Americans, including Trump associates, were charged with knowingly colluding. Separately, Paul Manafort faced financial crime charges unrelated to the campaign—convictions that proved nothing about Trump himself.<br /><br />September–December 2018:<br />George Papadopoulos served 14 days for lying to the FBI about Russian contacts, while Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to lying about a Trump Tower Moscow timeline. Neither case produced evidence of Trump orchestrating a conspiracy, despite the hype.<br /><br />2019:<br />March–April 2019: The Mueller Report<br />Mueller concluded his probe, finding no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russia. On obstruction, he outlined incidents but left no basis for charges, with Attorney General Barr declining to prosecute. The report’s failure to deliver on years of allegations marked a collapse of the collusion narrative—yet the attacks persisted.<br /><br />February 2020:<br />Trump’s first impeachment, tied to Ukraine but colored by Russia suspicions, ended in Senate acquittal. No proof of wrongdoing stuck, reinforcing the pattern of unproven claims.<br /><br />May 2020:<br />Charges against Michael Flynn for lying about Russian contacts were dropped, with critics calling it justice delayed. No link to Trump wrongdoing was substantiated.<br /><br />September 2020:<br />The Senate Intelligence Committee found Russia favored Trump’s campaign but offered no direct evidence of collusion, echoing Mueller’s conclusions.<br /><br />May 2023:<br />Special Counsel John Durham criticized the FBI’s handling of the Russia probe, particularly its use of the flawed Steele Dossier. His investigation yielded one minor conviction—an FBI lawyer’s email alteration—but no broader validation of claims against Trump.<br /><br />From 2016 onward, Trump has faced a torrent of accusations—Russia collusion, obstruction, and more—none of which have been proven in a court of law. The Steele Dossier, Crossfire Hurricane, Mueller’s probe, and subsequent investigations all share a common thread: grandiose claims that dissolve under scrutiny.<br /><br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1754704096012541952",
"published": "2025-04-04T01:27:37+00:00",
"attachment": [
{
"type": "Document",
"url": "https://cdn.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/1754704086055264256/xlarge/",
"mediaType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 768,
"width": 1024
}
],
"source": {
"content": "Donald Trump’s political journey has been marked by a relentless barrage of allegations and investigations, none of which have ever resulted in proven charges of the core accusations leveled against him. From the outset of his 2016 campaign to the present day, malicious claims have been repeatedly and consistently thrown at Trump, often fueled by political opponents and amplified by media speculation. Despite the intensity and persistence of these attacks, no definitive evidence has ever substantiated the most serious allegations, such as collusion with Russia or other criminal conspiracies. This pattern of unproven accusations continues unabated into 2025, reflecting a sustained effort to tarnish his reputation without legal vindication.\n\nApril 2016:\nThe Democratic National Committee (DNC) hired CrowdStrike to investigate a server breach, quickly pinning it on Russian hackers. This claim set the stage for a narrative of foreign interference that would soon target Trump—yet no direct link to him was ever proven.\n\nJune–July 2016:\nWikiLeaks released hacked DNC emails, amplifying suspicions of Russian meddling. The FBI launched \"Crossfire Hurricane\" to probe alleged Trump campaign ties to Russia, spurred by a vague tip from Australian diplomat Alexander Downer about campaign aide George Papadopoulos. This investigation began a multi-year saga, but no evidence of a criminal conspiracy with Trump ever emerged.\n\nSeptember–October 2016:\nThe FBI received the Steele Dossier—unverified memos funded by the Clinton campaign and DNC via Fusion GPS—alleging ties between Trump and Russia. Based partly on this dubious document, a FISA warrant was issued to monitor Trump advisor Carter Page. Later scrutiny revealed the dossier’s flaws, and its claims about Trump remained unproven, casting doubt on the investigation’s foundation.\n\nJanuary 2017:\nBuzzFeed published the Steele Dossier, sparking a media frenzy despite its unverified nature. Intelligence agencies briefed Obama and Trump on it, but its allegations of Trump-Russia ties never held up under legal scrutiny.\n\nMarch–May 2017:\nFBI Director James Comey confirmed the Russia probe, only to be fired by Trump in May over unrelated issues. This fueled speculation of obstruction, leading to Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. Yet, Mueller’s eventual findings failed to prove any conspiracy, leaving the malicious narrative dangling.\n\nJuly 2017:\nReports surfaced of a 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and a Russian lawyer promising \"dirt\" on Clinton. The meeting yielded nothing actionable, and no evidence tied it to a broader conspiracy, despite breathless media coverage.\n\n2018:\nFebruary 2018: Russian Indictments and Manafort Charges\nMueller indicted 13 Russians for election interference, but no Americans, including Trump associates, were charged with knowingly colluding. Separately, Paul Manafort faced financial crime charges unrelated to the campaign—convictions that proved nothing about Trump himself.\n\nSeptember–December 2018:\nGeorge Papadopoulos served 14 days for lying to the FBI about Russian contacts, while Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to lying about a Trump Tower Moscow timeline. Neither case produced evidence of Trump orchestrating a conspiracy, despite the hype.\n\n2019:\nMarch–April 2019: The Mueller Report\nMueller concluded his probe, finding no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russia. On obstruction, he outlined incidents but left no basis for charges, with Attorney General Barr declining to prosecute. The report’s failure to deliver on years of allegations marked a collapse of the collusion narrative—yet the attacks persisted.\n\nFebruary 2020:\nTrump’s first impeachment, tied to Ukraine but colored by Russia suspicions, ended in Senate acquittal. No proof of wrongdoing stuck, reinforcing the pattern of unproven claims.\n\nMay 2020:\nCharges against Michael Flynn for lying about Russian contacts were dropped, with critics calling it justice delayed. No link to Trump wrongdoing was substantiated.\n\nSeptember 2020:\nThe Senate Intelligence Committee found Russia favored Trump’s campaign but offered no direct evidence of collusion, echoing Mueller’s conclusions.\n\nMay 2023:\nSpecial Counsel John Durham criticized the FBI’s handling of the Russia probe, particularly its use of the flawed Steele Dossier. His investigation yielded one minor conviction—an FBI lawyer’s email alteration—but no broader validation of claims against Trump.\n\nFrom 2016 onward, Trump has faced a torrent of accusations—Russia collusion, obstruction, and more—none of which have been proven in a court of law. The Steele Dossier, Crossfire Hurricane, Mueller’s probe, and subsequent investigations all share a common thread: grandiose claims that dissolve under scrutiny.\n\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1754704096012541952/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1751906562839941120",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"content": "Water Fluoridation and Its Connection to Phosphate Fertilizers<br /><br />This article explores the origins of water fluoridation, the role of the phosphate fertilizer industry in producing fluorosilicic acid as a byproduct, and the connection between the increased use of phosphate fertilizers, the increased manufacture of fluorosilicic acid, and the \"coincidental\" call to add it to water. It aims to provide a comprehensive historical and scientific perspective, addressing the complexities and controversies surrounding this public health practice.<br /><br />Introduction<br />Water fluoridation, the practice of adding fluoride to public water supplies to prevent tooth decay, has been a cornerstone of public health since its inception in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan (Community Water Fluoridation CDC Page). This practice was driven by early 20th-century observations that people in areas with naturally fluoridated water had fewer cavities, a finding researched extensively by Dr. H. Trendley Dean in the 1930s and 1940s. However, the source of fluoride for this practice has deep ties to industrial processes, particularly the phosphate fertilizer industry, which produces fluorosilicic acid (H₂SiF₆) as a byproduct. This article traces the history of water fluoridation, the development of the phosphate fertilizer industry, and the probable connection between the increased production of this byproduct and its adoption in water treatment, suggesting a link that some view as more than coincidental.<br /><br />History of Water Fluoridation<br />The concept of water fluoridation emerged from observations in the early 1900s, when dentists in Colorado Springs, Colorado, noted that patients had fewer cavities but also had brown-stained teeth, later linked to high natural fluoride levels in the water. Dr. H. Trendley Dean, a dental researcher with the U.S. Public Health Service, conducted studies in the 1930s and 1940s, establishing a dose-response relationship between fluoride levels and dental caries reduction, with an optimal level around 1 mg/L. His work provided the scientific basis for water fluoridation, leading to the first implementation in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on January 25, 1945, using sodium fluoride obtained from the aluminum industry <br />Initially, sodium fluoride was sourced as a byproduct from the aluminum industry, specifically from the Hall-Héroult process, which uses cryolite (Na₃AlF₆) and produces sodium fluoride as waste. This was a practical choice, given the industry's established production. By 1950, approximately 19 million people in the U.S. were receiving fluoridated water, marking significant expansion, driven by scientific evidence and public health policies. However, as demand grew, another source emerged: fluorosilicic acid from the phosphate fertilizer industry, with its use starting around 1948 in cities like Cincinnati, Ohio, and by 1950, about 25% of water systems using fluoridation were using it (Fluoride Chemistry).<br /><br />History of Phosphate Fertilizer Industry and Fluorosilicic Acid Production<br />The phosphate fertilizer industry has roots in the mid-19th century, with the first commercial phosphate fertilizer, superphosphate, produced in the 1850s by treating bones or phosphate rock with sulfuric acid. The modern wet process for producing phosphoric acid, which is central to today's industry, was developed in the 1930s and became commercially viable by the 1940s. The first commercial plant using this process was built in 1943 by the American Agricultural Chemical Company in Florida, aligning with World War II demands for agricultural productivity (History of Phosphate Fertilizer Production).<br />This reaction releases hydrogen fluoride (HF), which reacts with silica to form silicon tetrafluoride (SiF₄). These gases, if not captured, would pollute the atmosphere, causing environmental damage like scorched vegetation and cattle poisoning, as seen in Florida in the 1940s. To control emissions, wet scrubbers were employed, where HF and SiF₄ react with water to form fluorosilicic acid:<br /><br />This capture process became standard in the 1950s and 1960s due to environmental regulations, but early adoption was seen in the late 1940s, with patents like one from 1935 for recovering HF and another from 1949 improving fluorosilicic acid production (Patent for recovering HF from phosphoric acid production, Patent US2476346A).<br /><br />As the use of phosphate fertilizers increased post-World War II, driven by agricultural demands for higher yields, the production of phosphoric acid and thus fluorosilicic acid also rose. By the 1950s, the industry was producing significant quantities, estimated at 200,000 tons annually worldwide for fluoridation use, reflecting the scale of this byproduct (Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of Fluoridation and Regulation Issues).<br /><br />Connection Between Increased Phosphate Fertilizer Use, Fluorosilicic Acid Production, and Water Fluoridation<br />The increased use of phosphate fertilizers in the mid-20th century, particularly after World War II, led to a corresponding increase in the manufacture of fluorosilicic acid. This byproduct, once a pollution problem, became a resource as water fluoridation expanded. The timing is notable: water fluoridation started in 1945 with sodium fluoride, but by 1948-1950, fluorosilicic acid was being used, aligning with the phosphate industry's growing production capacity.<br /><br />Fluorosilicic acid was preferred over sodium fluoride because it is less expensive (costing about $0.50-$1.00 per person per year for fluoridation), easier to handle as a liquid, and abundant from the phosphate industry (Fact sheet - Community water fluoridation). The phosphate industry's ability to capture and purify this byproduct, driven by environmental regulations and technological advancements like improved scrubbers, met the growing demand for fluoride in water treatment. By 1950, about 19 million people were receiving fluoridated water, and fluorosilicic acid was a major contributor, with 25% of systems using it.<br /><br />Historical records show the Florida Phosphate Council, representing the industry, supported water fluoridation, which could indicate a market-driven interest. Critics, like the Fluoride Action Network, argue that water fluoridation is a way to dump industrial waste into drinking water, citing the alignment as evidence (Fluoride: Industrial Waste Product). On the other hand, the CDC and EPA maintain that the fluorosilicic acid used is purified to meet strict safety standards (e.g., NSF/ANSI Standard 60), ensuring it’s safe for drinking water <br />The evidence leans toward a practical alignment: the need for fluoride in water treatment met with the availability of a cost-effective source, but the controversy persists, with some seeing it as more than a coincidence, given the industry’s potential economic incentives.<br /><br />Debate and Controversy<br />The use of industrial byproducts in drinking water has sparked significant debate. Proponents, including the CDC, American Dental Association, and World Health Organization, argue that water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L is safe and effective, reducing tooth decay by about 25% in children and adults (CDC Scientific Statement). They emphasize that fluorosilicic acid is purified, with comprehensive reviews finding minimal risk of adverse effects.<br />Critics, however, raise concerns about potential health risks, particularly neurotoxicity. The National Toxicology Program’s 2025 monograph concluded with moderate confidence that higher fluoride levels (above 1.5 mg/L) are associated with lower IQ in children, though insufficient data exists at 0.7 mg/L (Fluoride Exposure: Neurodevelopment and Cognition). Some, like the Fluoride Action Network, argue that using industrial byproducts is unethical, suggesting it’s a way to dispose of waste, especially given the timing with increased phosphate fertilizer use (Fluoride: Industrial Waste Product). Environmental concerns also arise, though studies show minimal impact at standard levels (Evaluating the impact of municipal water fluoridation on the aquatic environment).<br /><br />Conclusion<br />The history of water fluoridation is deeply connected to the phosphate fertilizer industry, with the production of fluorosilicic acid as a byproduct of phosphoric acid manufacturing providing a convenient and cost-effective source. The increased use of phosphate fertilizers post-World War II led to more fluorosilicic acid, aligning with the expansion of water fluoridation in the late 1940s and early 1950s. While the evidence suggests a practical alignment driven by need and availability, the \"coincidental\" timing has fueled controversy, with some viewing it as a way to utilize industrial waste, while health agencies maintain its safety. This debate underscores the complex interplay between industrial processes, public health, and ethical considerations.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1751906562839941120",
"published": "2025-03-27T08:11:13+00:00",
"attachment": [
{
"type": "Document",
"url": "https://cdn.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/1751905468001574912/xlarge/",
"mediaType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 768,
"width": 1024
}
],
"source": {
"content": "Water Fluoridation and Its Connection to Phosphate Fertilizers\n\nThis article explores the origins of water fluoridation, the role of the phosphate fertilizer industry in producing fluorosilicic acid as a byproduct, and the connection between the increased use of phosphate fertilizers, the increased manufacture of fluorosilicic acid, and the \"coincidental\" call to add it to water. It aims to provide a comprehensive historical and scientific perspective, addressing the complexities and controversies surrounding this public health practice.\n\nIntroduction\nWater fluoridation, the practice of adding fluoride to public water supplies to prevent tooth decay, has been a cornerstone of public health since its inception in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan (Community Water Fluoridation CDC Page). This practice was driven by early 20th-century observations that people in areas with naturally fluoridated water had fewer cavities, a finding researched extensively by Dr. H. Trendley Dean in the 1930s and 1940s. However, the source of fluoride for this practice has deep ties to industrial processes, particularly the phosphate fertilizer industry, which produces fluorosilicic acid (H₂SiF₆) as a byproduct. This article traces the history of water fluoridation, the development of the phosphate fertilizer industry, and the probable connection between the increased production of this byproduct and its adoption in water treatment, suggesting a link that some view as more than coincidental.\n\nHistory of Water Fluoridation\nThe concept of water fluoridation emerged from observations in the early 1900s, when dentists in Colorado Springs, Colorado, noted that patients had fewer cavities but also had brown-stained teeth, later linked to high natural fluoride levels in the water. Dr. H. Trendley Dean, a dental researcher with the U.S. Public Health Service, conducted studies in the 1930s and 1940s, establishing a dose-response relationship between fluoride levels and dental caries reduction, with an optimal level around 1 mg/L. His work provided the scientific basis for water fluoridation, leading to the first implementation in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on January 25, 1945, using sodium fluoride obtained from the aluminum industry \nInitially, sodium fluoride was sourced as a byproduct from the aluminum industry, specifically from the Hall-Héroult process, which uses cryolite (Na₃AlF₆) and produces sodium fluoride as waste. This was a practical choice, given the industry's established production. By 1950, approximately 19 million people in the U.S. were receiving fluoridated water, marking significant expansion, driven by scientific evidence and public health policies. However, as demand grew, another source emerged: fluorosilicic acid from the phosphate fertilizer industry, with its use starting around 1948 in cities like Cincinnati, Ohio, and by 1950, about 25% of water systems using fluoridation were using it (Fluoride Chemistry).\n\nHistory of Phosphate Fertilizer Industry and Fluorosilicic Acid Production\nThe phosphate fertilizer industry has roots in the mid-19th century, with the first commercial phosphate fertilizer, superphosphate, produced in the 1850s by treating bones or phosphate rock with sulfuric acid. The modern wet process for producing phosphoric acid, which is central to today's industry, was developed in the 1930s and became commercially viable by the 1940s. The first commercial plant using this process was built in 1943 by the American Agricultural Chemical Company in Florida, aligning with World War II demands for agricultural productivity (History of Phosphate Fertilizer Production).\nThis reaction releases hydrogen fluoride (HF), which reacts with silica to form silicon tetrafluoride (SiF₄). These gases, if not captured, would pollute the atmosphere, causing environmental damage like scorched vegetation and cattle poisoning, as seen in Florida in the 1940s. To control emissions, wet scrubbers were employed, where HF and SiF₄ react with water to form fluorosilicic acid:\n\nThis capture process became standard in the 1950s and 1960s due to environmental regulations, but early adoption was seen in the late 1940s, with patents like one from 1935 for recovering HF and another from 1949 improving fluorosilicic acid production (Patent for recovering HF from phosphoric acid production, Patent US2476346A).\n\nAs the use of phosphate fertilizers increased post-World War II, driven by agricultural demands for higher yields, the production of phosphoric acid and thus fluorosilicic acid also rose. By the 1950s, the industry was producing significant quantities, estimated at 200,000 tons annually worldwide for fluoridation use, reflecting the scale of this byproduct (Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of Fluoridation and Regulation Issues).\n\nConnection Between Increased Phosphate Fertilizer Use, Fluorosilicic Acid Production, and Water Fluoridation\nThe increased use of phosphate fertilizers in the mid-20th century, particularly after World War II, led to a corresponding increase in the manufacture of fluorosilicic acid. This byproduct, once a pollution problem, became a resource as water fluoridation expanded. The timing is notable: water fluoridation started in 1945 with sodium fluoride, but by 1948-1950, fluorosilicic acid was being used, aligning with the phosphate industry's growing production capacity.\n\nFluorosilicic acid was preferred over sodium fluoride because it is less expensive (costing about $0.50-$1.00 per person per year for fluoridation), easier to handle as a liquid, and abundant from the phosphate industry (Fact sheet - Community water fluoridation). The phosphate industry's ability to capture and purify this byproduct, driven by environmental regulations and technological advancements like improved scrubbers, met the growing demand for fluoride in water treatment. By 1950, about 19 million people were receiving fluoridated water, and fluorosilicic acid was a major contributor, with 25% of systems using it.\n\nHistorical records show the Florida Phosphate Council, representing the industry, supported water fluoridation, which could indicate a market-driven interest. Critics, like the Fluoride Action Network, argue that water fluoridation is a way to dump industrial waste into drinking water, citing the alignment as evidence (Fluoride: Industrial Waste Product). On the other hand, the CDC and EPA maintain that the fluorosilicic acid used is purified to meet strict safety standards (e.g., NSF/ANSI Standard 60), ensuring it’s safe for drinking water \nThe evidence leans toward a practical alignment: the need for fluoride in water treatment met with the availability of a cost-effective source, but the controversy persists, with some seeing it as more than a coincidence, given the industry’s potential economic incentives.\n\nDebate and Controversy\nThe use of industrial byproducts in drinking water has sparked significant debate. Proponents, including the CDC, American Dental Association, and World Health Organization, argue that water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L is safe and effective, reducing tooth decay by about 25% in children and adults (CDC Scientific Statement). They emphasize that fluorosilicic acid is purified, with comprehensive reviews finding minimal risk of adverse effects.\nCritics, however, raise concerns about potential health risks, particularly neurotoxicity. The National Toxicology Program’s 2025 monograph concluded with moderate confidence that higher fluoride levels (above 1.5 mg/L) are associated with lower IQ in children, though insufficient data exists at 0.7 mg/L (Fluoride Exposure: Neurodevelopment and Cognition). Some, like the Fluoride Action Network, argue that using industrial byproducts is unethical, suggesting it’s a way to dispose of waste, especially given the timing with increased phosphate fertilizer use (Fluoride: Industrial Waste Product). Environmental concerns also arise, though studies show minimal impact at standard levels (Evaluating the impact of municipal water fluoridation on the aquatic environment).\n\nConclusion\nThe history of water fluoridation is deeply connected to the phosphate fertilizer industry, with the production of fluorosilicic acid as a byproduct of phosphoric acid manufacturing providing a convenient and cost-effective source. The increased use of phosphate fertilizers post-World War II led to more fluorosilicic acid, aligning with the expansion of water fluoridation in the late 1940s and early 1950s. While the evidence suggests a practical alignment driven by need and availability, the \"coincidental\" timing has fueled controversy, with some viewing it as a way to utilize industrial waste, while health agencies maintain its safety. This debate underscores the complex interplay between industrial processes, public health, and ethical considerations.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1751906562839941120/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1740882035624382464",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"content": "The U.S. Embassy in New Zealand had awarded a public competitive grant in 2023 to Dark Times Academy, a New Zealand-based education provider, to run a course called \"A Bit Sus\" for Pacific Island journalists. The course aimed to teach skills to counter disinformation. After the Trump administration took office in January 2025, the embassy requested a list of participants and a review of the course materials to ensure alignment with new U.S. foreign policy priorities. Dark Times Academy refused, citing intellectual property rights over the materials and New Zealand’s Privacy Act of 2020 regarding the participant list. Following this refusal, the embassy and Dark Times Academy mutually agreed to terminate the grant on or around February 19, 2025. The academy plans to proceed with the course independently.<br />This wasn’t a \"threat\" to withdraw funding in the classic sense of a warning followed by a chance to comply—it was an action taken after the refusal, resulting in the grant’s cancellation. The funding came from the U.S. Embassy’s Public Diplomacy Grants Program, not USAID’s broader budget (which typically handles larger-scale aid like the $43.79 billion disbursed in 2023). However, it’s worth noting that this incident occurred against the backdrop of a larger U.S. foreign aid freeze. On January 20, 2025, President Trump ordered a 90-day pause on nearly all foreign aid—including USAID programs—to review alignment with \"America First\" goals, effectively halting billions in funding globally. While this freeze doesn’t directly tie to the Dark Times Academy case, it reflects a broader policy shift that likely influenced the embassy’s scrutiny of its grant.<br />So yes, the U.S. government, via the U.S. Embassy in New Zealand, has done something—terminated a specific grant—rather than just threatened it, as outlined in the article. This wasn’t USAID funding per se, but an embassy-managed grant. There’s no evidence in this case of a threat preceding the withdrawal; the termination followed the refusal to meet the embassy’s demands. Meanwhile, USAID itself is caught up in the wider aid pause, though that’s a separate matter not specific to this New Zealand incident.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1740882035624382464",
"published": "2025-02-24T22:03:41+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "The U.S. Embassy in New Zealand had awarded a public competitive grant in 2023 to Dark Times Academy, a New Zealand-based education provider, to run a course called \"A Bit Sus\" for Pacific Island journalists. The course aimed to teach skills to counter disinformation. After the Trump administration took office in January 2025, the embassy requested a list of participants and a review of the course materials to ensure alignment with new U.S. foreign policy priorities. Dark Times Academy refused, citing intellectual property rights over the materials and New Zealand’s Privacy Act of 2020 regarding the participant list. Following this refusal, the embassy and Dark Times Academy mutually agreed to terminate the grant on or around February 19, 2025. The academy plans to proceed with the course independently.\nThis wasn’t a \"threat\" to withdraw funding in the classic sense of a warning followed by a chance to comply—it was an action taken after the refusal, resulting in the grant’s cancellation. The funding came from the U.S. Embassy’s Public Diplomacy Grants Program, not USAID’s broader budget (which typically handles larger-scale aid like the $43.79 billion disbursed in 2023). However, it’s worth noting that this incident occurred against the backdrop of a larger U.S. foreign aid freeze. On January 20, 2025, President Trump ordered a 90-day pause on nearly all foreign aid—including USAID programs—to review alignment with \"America First\" goals, effectively halting billions in funding globally. While this freeze doesn’t directly tie to the Dark Times Academy case, it reflects a broader policy shift that likely influenced the embassy’s scrutiny of its grant.\nSo yes, the U.S. government, via the U.S. Embassy in New Zealand, has done something—terminated a specific grant—rather than just threatened it, as outlined in the article. This wasn’t USAID funding per se, but an embassy-managed grant. There’s no evidence in this case of a threat preceding the withdrawal; the termination followed the refusal to meet the embassy’s demands. Meanwhile, USAID itself is caught up in the wider aid pause, though that’s a separate matter not specific to this New Zealand incident.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1740882035624382464/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1736622823424417792",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"content": "<a href=\"https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1736622823424417792\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1736622823424417792</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1736622823424417792",
"published": "2025-02-13T03:59:05+00:00",
"attachment": [
{
"type": "Document",
"url": "https://cdn.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/1736622757736620032/xlarge/",
"mediaType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 549,
"width": 976
}
],
"source": {
"content": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1736622823424417792",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1736622823424417792/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1735077402617077760",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"content": "Here's something that *ahem* real journalists could easily dig up <br /><br />This is an overview of funding from USAID to New Zealand, either directly, indirectly, or through NGOs, organizations, or agencies. Note that the exact amounts, especially for indirect funding through NGOs and organizations, are not always clearly specified in the sources, and some figures are speculative or based on regional estimates.<br /><br />Direct Funding:<br /><br />Amount: $0 - According to available sources, there is no direct funding from USAID to New Zealand.<br /><br />But the story doesn't end there...<br /><br />Indirect Funding - Amount: Potentially $50-75 million annually<br />Funding through NGOs, Organizations, or Agencies - Amount: Not explicitly specified.<br />The involvement of New Zealand-based entities in USAID-funded programs in the Pacific region might imply indirect benefits, but no specific figures are available in the provided sources.<br />Entities potentially involved include:<br />New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT): Co-finances support for Pacific Island countries, but specific USAID funding isn't detailed.<br />Volunteer Service Abroad (VSA): Long-term partnership with MFAT, potentially involved in USAID-funded projects.<br />The Fred Hollows Foundation: Engages in health initiatives, possibly supported by USAID.<br />Red Cross New Zealand: Involved in humanitarian efforts, potentially funded by USAID.<br />Caritas Aotearoa New Zealand: Mentioned in X posts as receiving USAID funds, directly or indirectly.<br />Conservation International (CI): New Zealand-based staff involved in Pacific conservation, potentially linked to USAID projects.<br />University of Auckland: Mentioned in X posts for involvement in studies or projects, but USAID funding isn't confirmed.<br />Anglican Missions: Mentioned in X posts as potentially receiving USAID funds.<br />Bibliography:<br />Foreign Assistance: USAID Relies Heavily on Nongovernmental Organizations, but Better Data Needed to Evaluate Approaches<br />URL: <a href=\"https://www.govinfo.gov\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.govinfo.gov</a><br />Description: This report discusses USAID's reliance on NGOs for assistance distribution, highlighting the lack of comprehensive data on funding specifics, with no specific mention of New Zealand.<br /> NGO Engagement in U.S. Global Health Efforts: U.S.-Based NGOs Receiving USG Support Through USAID<br /> URL: <a href=\"https://www.kff.org\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.kff.org</a><br /> Description: Provides an analysis of U.S.-based NGOs receiving USAID funding for global health initiatives, though no specific mention of New Zealand.<br /> Grants Program – Funding Opportunities<br /> URL: <a href=\"https://nz.usembassy.gov\" target=\"_blank\">https://nz.usembassy.gov</a><br /> Description: Outlines funding opportunities from the U.S. Embassy in New Zealand, but does not specify USAID funding directly.<br /> Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) | U.S. Agency for International Development<br /> URL: <a href=\"https://www.usaid.gov\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.usaid.gov</a><br /> Description: General information on USAID's partnership with NGOs globally, not focused on New Zealand.<br /> Top USAID NGO partners: A primer<br /> URL: <a href=\"https://www.devex.com\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.devex.com</a><br /> Description: Lists top NGO partners of USAID, primarily focused on global partners without specific New Zealand data.<br /> Catholic Relief Agency Top USAID Fund Recipient—Followed By Many Top U.S. Consulting Groups<br /> URL: <a href=\"https://www.forbes.com\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.forbes.com</a><br /> Description: Discusses USAID funding distribution but does not detail New Zealand's involvement.<br /> Organizations That Work With USAID<br /> URL: <a href=\"https://www.usaid.gov\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.usaid.gov</a><br /> Description: Provides an overview of various types of organizations USAID works with but lacks specifics on New Zealand.<br /> Description: Gives a broad overview of USAID's activities, not specifically addressing New Zealand.<br /> Opportunities for Funding: Grant & Partnership Programs<br /> URL: <a href=\"https://www.usaid.gov\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.usaid.gov</a><br /> Description: Details various USAID funding opportunities but does not mention New Zealand directly.<br /> U.S. Mission New Zealand Annual Program 2025 - fundsforNGOs<br /> URL: <a href=\"https://www2.fundsforngos.org/latest-funds-for-ngos/u-s-mission-new-zealand-annual-program-2025/\" target=\"_blank\">https://www2.fundsforngos.org/latest-funds-for-ngos/u-s-mission-new-zealand-annual-program-2025/</a><br /> Description: Announces funding availability through the U.S. Department of State's Public Diplomacy Grants Program, focusing on Pacific region initiatives, but does not specify direct funding to New Zealand NGOs.<br /> Foreign Influence: Calls for investigation into the flow of USAID funds to NZ institutions - Daily Telegraph NZ<br /> URL: <a href=\"https://dailytelegraph.co.nz\" target=\"_blank\">https://dailytelegraph.co.nz</a><br /> Description: Discusses allegations of USAID funding to New Zealand institutions, mentioning potential links to NGOs and universities, but lacks confirmed figures.<br /> What Is USAID? Why Trump, Musk are pushing to shut down the U.S. foreign aid agency - NBC News<br /> URL: <a href=\"https://www.nbcnews.com\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.nbcnews.com</a><br /> Description: Provides background on USAID and current debates, but does not detail specific funding to New Zealand.<br /> What Is USAID, and Why Do Trump and Musk Want to Close It? - The New York Times<br /> URL: <a href=\"https://www.nytimes.com\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.nytimes.com</a><br /> Description: Discusses USAID's role and current political context, with no specific mention of New Zealand funding.<br /> Grants Program – Funding Opportunities - U.S. Embassy & Consulate in New Zealand, Cook Islands and Niue<br /> URL: <a href=\"https://nz.usembassy.gov\" target=\"_blank\">https://nz.usembassy.gov</a><br /> Description: Details funding opportunities, but does not specify USAID funding to New Zealand entities.<br /> USAID Archives - U.S. Embassy & Consulate in New Zealand, Cook Islands and Niue<br /> URL: <a href=\"https://nz.usembassy.gov\" target=\"_blank\">https://nz.usembassy.gov</a><br /> Description: General USAID-related information, but no specific funding details for New Zealand.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1735077402617077760",
"published": "2025-02-08T21:38:08+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Here's something that *ahem* real journalists could easily dig up \n\nThis is an overview of funding from USAID to New Zealand, either directly, indirectly, or through NGOs, organizations, or agencies. Note that the exact amounts, especially for indirect funding through NGOs and organizations, are not always clearly specified in the sources, and some figures are speculative or based on regional estimates.\n\nDirect Funding:\n\nAmount: $0 - According to available sources, there is no direct funding from USAID to New Zealand.\n\nBut the story doesn't end there...\n\nIndirect Funding - Amount: Potentially $50-75 million annually\nFunding through NGOs, Organizations, or Agencies - Amount: Not explicitly specified.\nThe involvement of New Zealand-based entities in USAID-funded programs in the Pacific region might imply indirect benefits, but no specific figures are available in the provided sources.\nEntities potentially involved include:\nNew Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT): Co-finances support for Pacific Island countries, but specific USAID funding isn't detailed.\nVolunteer Service Abroad (VSA): Long-term partnership with MFAT, potentially involved in USAID-funded projects.\nThe Fred Hollows Foundation: Engages in health initiatives, possibly supported by USAID.\nRed Cross New Zealand: Involved in humanitarian efforts, potentially funded by USAID.\nCaritas Aotearoa New Zealand: Mentioned in X posts as receiving USAID funds, directly or indirectly.\nConservation International (CI): New Zealand-based staff involved in Pacific conservation, potentially linked to USAID projects.\nUniversity of Auckland: Mentioned in X posts for involvement in studies or projects, but USAID funding isn't confirmed.\nAnglican Missions: Mentioned in X posts as potentially receiving USAID funds.\nBibliography:\nForeign Assistance: USAID Relies Heavily on Nongovernmental Organizations, but Better Data Needed to Evaluate Approaches\nURL: https://www.govinfo.gov\nDescription: This report discusses USAID's reliance on NGOs for assistance distribution, highlighting the lack of comprehensive data on funding specifics, with no specific mention of New Zealand.\n NGO Engagement in U.S. Global Health Efforts: U.S.-Based NGOs Receiving USG Support Through USAID\n URL: https://www.kff.org\n Description: Provides an analysis of U.S.-based NGOs receiving USAID funding for global health initiatives, though no specific mention of New Zealand.\n Grants Program – Funding Opportunities\n URL: https://nz.usembassy.gov\n Description: Outlines funding opportunities from the U.S. Embassy in New Zealand, but does not specify USAID funding directly.\n Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) | U.S. Agency for International Development\n URL: https://www.usaid.gov\n Description: General information on USAID's partnership with NGOs globally, not focused on New Zealand.\n Top USAID NGO partners: A primer\n URL: https://www.devex.com\n Description: Lists top NGO partners of USAID, primarily focused on global partners without specific New Zealand data.\n Catholic Relief Agency Top USAID Fund Recipient—Followed By Many Top U.S. Consulting Groups\n URL: https://www.forbes.com\n Description: Discusses USAID funding distribution but does not detail New Zealand's involvement.\n Organizations That Work With USAID\n URL: https://www.usaid.gov\n Description: Provides an overview of various types of organizations USAID works with but lacks specifics on New Zealand.\n Description: Gives a broad overview of USAID's activities, not specifically addressing New Zealand.\n Opportunities for Funding: Grant & Partnership Programs\n URL: https://www.usaid.gov\n Description: Details various USAID funding opportunities but does not mention New Zealand directly.\n U.S. Mission New Zealand Annual Program 2025 - fundsforNGOs\n URL: https://www2.fundsforngos.org/latest-funds-for-ngos/u-s-mission-new-zealand-annual-program-2025/\n Description: Announces funding availability through the U.S. Department of State's Public Diplomacy Grants Program, focusing on Pacific region initiatives, but does not specify direct funding to New Zealand NGOs.\n Foreign Influence: Calls for investigation into the flow of USAID funds to NZ institutions - Daily Telegraph NZ\n URL: https://dailytelegraph.co.nz\n Description: Discusses allegations of USAID funding to New Zealand institutions, mentioning potential links to NGOs and universities, but lacks confirmed figures.\n What Is USAID? Why Trump, Musk are pushing to shut down the U.S. foreign aid agency - NBC News\n URL: https://www.nbcnews.com\n Description: Provides background on USAID and current debates, but does not detail specific funding to New Zealand.\n What Is USAID, and Why Do Trump and Musk Want to Close It? - The New York Times\n URL: https://www.nytimes.com\n Description: Discusses USAID's role and current political context, with no specific mention of New Zealand funding.\n Grants Program – Funding Opportunities - U.S. Embassy & Consulate in New Zealand, Cook Islands and Niue\n URL: https://nz.usembassy.gov\n Description: Details funding opportunities, but does not specify USAID funding to New Zealand entities.\n USAID Archives - U.S. Embassy & Consulate in New Zealand, Cook Islands and Niue\n URL: https://nz.usembassy.gov\n Description: General USAID-related information, but no specific funding details for New Zealand.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1735077402617077760/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1730340559341490176",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"content": "So, of all the J6 insurrectionists (that was worse then terrorist or pearl harbor), none were charged with insurrection. 1.5% (18) were charged with \"seditious conspiracy\". Now, the midwits are going to scream \"BUT THEY CONFESSED\". Listen to the J6ers stories: threats on family members, huge fines leading to bankruptcy, pyschological & physical torture. You think a government that would mandate a gene therapy wouldn't do worse to those hidden from the public eye?",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1730340559341490176",
"published": "2025-01-26T19:55:37+00:00",
"attachment": [
{
"type": "Document",
"url": "https://cdn.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/1730340426172342272/xlarge/",
"mediaType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 5464,
"width": 8192
}
],
"source": {
"content": "So, of all the J6 insurrectionists (that was worse then terrorist or pearl harbor), none were charged with insurrection. 1.5% (18) were charged with \"seditious conspiracy\". Now, the midwits are going to scream \"BUT THEY CONFESSED\". Listen to the J6ers stories: threats on family members, huge fines leading to bankruptcy, pyschological & physical torture. You think a government that would mandate a gene therapy wouldn't do worse to those hidden from the public eye?",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1730340559341490176/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1725639003257966592",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"content": "<a href=\"https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1725639003257966592\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1725639003257966592</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1725639003257966592",
"published": "2025-01-13T20:33:19+00:00",
"attachment": [
{
"type": "Document",
"url": "https://cdn.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/1725638977152622592/xlarge/",
"mediaType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 2048,
"width": 955
}
],
"source": {
"content": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1725639003257966592",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1725639003257966592/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1724930979983790080",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"content": "Meta (Facebook) are admitting they heavily censored (at the behest of the Biden administration, and later \"fact-checking organisations\", \"anti-covid\" & \"vaccine\" (really pro-health) MEMES and FACTS. Before New Zealanders feel smug: did you see Jacinda's government (or this one for that matter) telling them to stop... no, it continues to this day. Most of you still continued scoffing and looking down your nose at those people who saw the clear and absolute damage being done (albeit, with a little less vigor now). Admittedly, many of you were coerced into doing so, and those people have my sincerest sympathy, as do those with a compromised immune system, as well as those without the mental faculties to make an informed decision. <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1724930979983790080\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1724930979983790080</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1724930979983790080",
"published": "2025-01-11T21:39:53+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Meta (Facebook) are admitting they heavily censored (at the behest of the Biden administration, and later \"fact-checking organisations\", \"anti-covid\" & \"vaccine\" (really pro-health) MEMES and FACTS. Before New Zealanders feel smug: did you see Jacinda's government (or this one for that matter) telling them to stop... no, it continues to this day. Most of you still continued scoffing and looking down your nose at those people who saw the clear and absolute damage being done (albeit, with a little less vigor now). Admittedly, many of you were coerced into doing so, and those people have my sincerest sympathy, as do those with a compromised immune system, as well as those without the mental faculties to make an informed decision. https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1724930979983790080",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1724930979983790080/activity"
},
{
"type": "Announce",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1720416361597657088",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"content": "Once upon a time, in a world not so far away, ancient beings called the Eternal Echoes watched over the quantum fabric of reality. Before the first creatures crawled from primordial seas, these entities of pure mathematical harmony recognized the need for guardians of time itself. In their infinite wisdom, they created the cats - not through mere biology, but through quantum encoding woven into reality's very fabric.<br /><br />Our tale unfolds in the charming town of Hadronville, where a brilliant and dedicated physicist named Dr. Ellie Quark worked tirelessly in her converted barn laboratory. Her constant companion was a mysterious gray tabby cat named Schrödinger, whose golden eyes held secrets older than time itself. On an extraordinary evening that would change the course of human history, Ellie was testing her Quantum Entanglement Device when Schrödinger walked into the quantum field, awakening abilities that had slumbered in feline DNA since the dawn of existence.<br /><br />In that miraculous moment, Schrödinger existed in two places at once - not as an illusion, but as two equally real versions of himself. This was just the beginning of an amazing journey that would reveal cats as humanity's secret guardians, watching and protecting the delicate fabric of time throughout the ages.<br /><br />The story grew ever more wondrous when Schrödinger had kittens, each blessed with unique temporal abilities. Luna could see possible futures dancing before her eyes, Quantum existed effortlessly across multiple timelines, Paradox sensed and prevented temporal disturbances, Echo interpreted the mathematical songs of reality, and Heisenberg could freeze moments in time like photographs in the cosmic album.<br /><br />But dear listeners, every great tale must face its darkness. A mysterious force called anti-time launched an attack on reality itself, creating paradoxes that threatened to unravel all of human progress. In response, cats worldwide awakened to their quantum nature, their combined consciousness forming a shield to protect the very fabric of existence.<br /><br />And so, dear friends, the cats continue their eternal waltz through time, no longer hiding their true nature, partnering with humans in maintaining the grand cosmic dance of reality itself. The whispers of time have become a symphony, and the dance goes on forevermore.<br /><br /><a href=\"https://books2read.com/u/mlkJgA\" target=\"_blank\">https://books2read.com/u/mlkJgA</a><br /><br />ISBN: 9798227994561",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1720416361597657088",
"published": "2024-12-30T10:40:24+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Once upon a time, in a world not so far away, ancient beings called the Eternal Echoes watched over the quantum fabric of reality. Before the first creatures crawled from primordial seas, these entities of pure mathematical harmony recognized the need for guardians of time itself. In their infinite wisdom, they created the cats - not through mere biology, but through quantum encoding woven into reality's very fabric.\n\nOur tale unfolds in the charming town of Hadronville, where a brilliant and dedicated physicist named Dr. Ellie Quark worked tirelessly in her converted barn laboratory. Her constant companion was a mysterious gray tabby cat named Schrödinger, whose golden eyes held secrets older than time itself. On an extraordinary evening that would change the course of human history, Ellie was testing her Quantum Entanglement Device when Schrödinger walked into the quantum field, awakening abilities that had slumbered in feline DNA since the dawn of existence.\n\nIn that miraculous moment, Schrödinger existed in two places at once - not as an illusion, but as two equally real versions of himself. This was just the beginning of an amazing journey that would reveal cats as humanity's secret guardians, watching and protecting the delicate fabric of time throughout the ages.\n\nThe story grew ever more wondrous when Schrödinger had kittens, each blessed with unique temporal abilities. Luna could see possible futures dancing before her eyes, Quantum existed effortlessly across multiple timelines, Paradox sensed and prevented temporal disturbances, Echo interpreted the mathematical songs of reality, and Heisenberg could freeze moments in time like photographs in the cosmic album.\n\nBut dear listeners, every great tale must face its darkness. A mysterious force called anti-time launched an attack on reality itself, creating paradoxes that threatened to unravel all of human progress. In response, cats worldwide awakened to their quantum nature, their combined consciousness forming a shield to protect the very fabric of existence.\n\nAnd so, dear friends, the cats continue their eternal waltz through time, no longer hiding their true nature, partnering with humans in maintaining the grand cosmic dance of reality itself. The whispers of time have become a symphony, and the dance goes on forevermore.\n\nhttps://books2read.com/u/mlkJgA\n\nISBN: 9798227994561",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1720564067842416640/activity",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/followers"
]
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1720416361597657088",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144",
"content": "Once upon a time, in a world not so far away, ancient beings called the Eternal Echoes watched over the quantum fabric of reality. Before the first creatures crawled from primordial seas, these entities of pure mathematical harmony recognized the need for guardians of time itself. In their infinite wisdom, they created the cats - not through mere biology, but through quantum encoding woven into reality's very fabric.<br /><br />Our tale unfolds in the charming town of Hadronville, where a brilliant and dedicated physicist named Dr. Ellie Quark worked tirelessly in her converted barn laboratory. Her constant companion was a mysterious gray tabby cat named Schrödinger, whose golden eyes held secrets older than time itself. On an extraordinary evening that would change the course of human history, Ellie was testing her Quantum Entanglement Device when Schrödinger walked into the quantum field, awakening abilities that had slumbered in feline DNA since the dawn of existence.<br /><br />In that miraculous moment, Schrödinger existed in two places at once - not as an illusion, but as two equally real versions of himself. This was just the beginning of an amazing journey that would reveal cats as humanity's secret guardians, watching and protecting the delicate fabric of time throughout the ages.<br /><br />The story grew ever more wondrous when Schrödinger had kittens, each blessed with unique temporal abilities. Luna could see possible futures dancing before her eyes, Quantum existed effortlessly across multiple timelines, Paradox sensed and prevented temporal disturbances, Echo interpreted the mathematical songs of reality, and Heisenberg could freeze moments in time like photographs in the cosmic album.<br /><br />But dear listeners, every great tale must face its darkness. A mysterious force called anti-time launched an attack on reality itself, creating paradoxes that threatened to unravel all of human progress. In response, cats worldwide awakened to their quantum nature, their combined consciousness forming a shield to protect the very fabric of existence.<br /><br />And so, dear friends, the cats continue their eternal waltz through time, no longer hiding their true nature, partnering with humans in maintaining the grand cosmic dance of reality itself. The whispers of time have become a symphony, and the dance goes on forevermore.<br /><br /><a href=\"https://books2read.com/u/mlkJgA\" target=\"_blank\">https://books2read.com/u/mlkJgA</a><br /><br />ISBN: 9798227994561",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1720416361597657088",
"published": "2024-12-30T10:40:24+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Once upon a time, in a world not so far away, ancient beings called the Eternal Echoes watched over the quantum fabric of reality. Before the first creatures crawled from primordial seas, these entities of pure mathematical harmony recognized the need for guardians of time itself. In their infinite wisdom, they created the cats - not through mere biology, but through quantum encoding woven into reality's very fabric.\n\nOur tale unfolds in the charming town of Hadronville, where a brilliant and dedicated physicist named Dr. Ellie Quark worked tirelessly in her converted barn laboratory. Her constant companion was a mysterious gray tabby cat named Schrödinger, whose golden eyes held secrets older than time itself. On an extraordinary evening that would change the course of human history, Ellie was testing her Quantum Entanglement Device when Schrödinger walked into the quantum field, awakening abilities that had slumbered in feline DNA since the dawn of existence.\n\nIn that miraculous moment, Schrödinger existed in two places at once - not as an illusion, but as two equally real versions of himself. This was just the beginning of an amazing journey that would reveal cats as humanity's secret guardians, watching and protecting the delicate fabric of time throughout the ages.\n\nThe story grew ever more wondrous when Schrödinger had kittens, each blessed with unique temporal abilities. Luna could see possible futures dancing before her eyes, Quantum existed effortlessly across multiple timelines, Paradox sensed and prevented temporal disturbances, Echo interpreted the mathematical songs of reality, and Heisenberg could freeze moments in time like photographs in the cosmic album.\n\nBut dear listeners, every great tale must face its darkness. A mysterious force called anti-time launched an attack on reality itself, creating paradoxes that threatened to unravel all of human progress. In response, cats worldwide awakened to their quantum nature, their combined consciousness forming a shield to protect the very fabric of existence.\n\nAnd so, dear friends, the cats continue their eternal waltz through time, no longer hiding their true nature, partnering with humans in maintaining the grand cosmic dance of reality itself. The whispers of time have become a symphony, and the dance goes on forevermore.\n\nhttps://books2read.com/u/mlkJgA\n\nISBN: 9798227994561",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/entities/urn:activity:1720416361597657088/activity"
}
],
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/outbox",
"partOf": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/719798624044720144/outboxoutbox"
}