this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2026
993 points (99.4% liked)

Microblog Memes

11829 readers
2318 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 37 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Surveillance cameras tracking everyone: Apparently okay

People tracking surveillance cameras: Suddenly terrorism

Make it make sense lol.

[–] TheHound@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

Terrorism for thee, not for me.

[–] SethTaylor@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I can help translate that:

"Anything I don't like is terorrism. Waaaah waaaaah waaah my profits waaaah my private jet"

EDIT: For the record, I don't know who this guy is and Flock is not a thing where I live, but he seems like such a piece of shit I couldn't help myself

[–] Bahnd@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

100% accurate and a wonderful preformance, I see an Oscar in your future.

[–] TootTootComingThru@lemmy.world 5 points 23 hours ago

These "people" gotta go man. These creepy, soulless, joyless tech dweebs are the enemy and they don't belong here.

[–] jack_of_sandwich 25 points 1 day ago

And of course he is jumping on the Republican narrative that Antifa is a formal terrorist organization

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 22 hours ago

Yoru primary motivation is violating everyone's privacy and trying to reenslave humanity. Pretty sure that's worse.

[–] peaceful_world_view@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The war with the machines is coming.

[–] pressanykeynow@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

Why? The machines are not the problem, shitty people are. Ok, you are right, shitty people will make stupid people fight against their machines.

[–] Dryad@lemmy.world 126 points 2 days ago

Yeah no question what his political affiliations and actual motives are.

[–] JTskulk@lemmy.world 90 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Cameras everywhere tracking everyone? Safety.

A map listing the locations of cameras, not people? Terrorism.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago

Cameras are pieces of capital.

People are pieces of labor.

[–] squidbilly@piefed.social 56 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Why is antifa always the devil in those sorts of communities?

[–] Okokimup@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Bad branding doesn't help. Saying the full words "anti-fascist" makes it clear what is being talked about. Antifa is pithy but to people who don't know, it sounds like a shady terror organization.

[–] DigDoug@lemmy.world 70 points 1 day ago

Because they're fascists.

[–] UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

Because they are FA

[–] BranBucket@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My personal theory is that claiming antifa is bad allows them to imply that fascism is good without directly saying it, conditioning their base to accept all the face eating as just a cost of rooting out the wicked terrorists.

I may be giving them too much credit, though.

[–] jpablo68@infosec.pub 2 points 1 day ago

That's what I think, if you're anti antifa you're somewhat pro fascism

[–] gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Hmmmmmmm I wonder why someone would single out anti-fascists as an enemy. You could say they're anti-antifascist

[–] jack_of_sandwich 9 points 1 day ago

Because it's a useful narrative to demonize protest against the government.

[–] StillAlive@piefed.world 56 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 points 20 hours ago

He looks like a tycoon game person

[–] oxideseven@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 day ago

I honestly thought it was like an AI drawing of him...

[–] iceonfire1@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chortle_tortle@mander.xyz 87 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I guess this guy should live in terror if they are terrorists.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Oh you just know he's paranoid of absolutely everyone.

[–] JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 day ago

Everyone non white and at least wealthy enough to qualify as his gardener.

[–] SpacePanda@mander.xyz 16 points 2 days ago

This is good thinking. Modern problems require modern solutions.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] arin@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago

Calling a website against your company anti-fascist seems to imply something is fascist...

[–] sepi@piefed.social 48 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 66 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This is troubling news. Antifa should sue him for this defamatory comparison. Someone get the president of antifa on the line, stat!

[–] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 30 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Ugh, if only we could, but everybody knows how formidable Antifa's many layers of bureaucratic gatekeepers are...

Ehh, I'll bring it up at our next District conference and see if we can get a committee formed to consider the idea.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 11 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Can confirm. I'm the under-secretary to the assistant regional manager of Antifa's Northwestern Bureau. So much paperwork.

[–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Damn, can't get anything done around here without filling out a twenty-seven B stroke six...

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] otterpop@lemmy.world 44 points 1 day ago

Getting upset humans are manually mapping where these cameras are while installing these cameras that essentially are cataloging everything they can about comings and goings is pretty hypocritical!

Hey remember that time when that one guy tracked fElon's private jet...then got banned by said fElon for merely existing?

It's free speech until it's not

[–] Eh_I@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

We should stick one of his cameras where the son of the dragon doesn't shine.

[–] MrKoyun@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

If you're getting called a terrorist by these people, you're doing something right.

[–] khepri@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Apropos of nothing, for your own safety, just be aware that high-powered hand-held blue or green lasers (1W+) are extremely dangerous and can permanently damage both human eyes and camera sensors beyond repair.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 40 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Lasers are not a very efficient way to damage cameras.

They can, sure ... but there are a lot of issues.

  • 1W is your minimum power for this kind of thing, but at that level, permanent damage is relatively unlikely, especially at distance. To reliably damage camera sensors, especially from any significant distance, you're going to need a much more powerful laser. Dozens of watts at least ... which typically means you'll need a large, inconvenient, and tremendously expensive machine to do it reliably. (Pro tip: if none of this dissuades you, at least get a really powerful laser. Forget 'laser pointers' sold on ebay etc. You want skincare lasers -- hair and tattoo removal lasers are pulsed lasers with far more peak power and far more dangerous to camera sensors, if you can get them to focus at distance, and they're still fairly affordable. Rust removal/metal cutting lasers are also effective and powerful, but they tend to be larger and more expensive.)

  • Even when laser damaged, cameras typically don't stop working entirely -- the laser tends to just create a few dead pixels here and there. Longer exposure or more power can cause more dead pixels ... but do you really want to have to stand there shining a laser at it for several minutes just to slightly degrade the image quality? (Worse, there's no way for you to review it and see how well it's working, so this will have to be all based on guesswork. Did you fully disable the camera? Just degrade it a little? Accomplish nothing at all? Are you done here, or do you need to keep using your laser? No way to know!) Needing to keep the laser on target for several minutes is also problematic because most high-power lasers have limited runtime before they overheat, and you may have issues with your laser if you try to run it more than a minute or two continuously. Not to mention, the longer you stand there, the more chance there is of you getting caught in the act.

  • In order to shine a laser into the camera sensor, you must first stand in front of the camera sensor in clear view of it. Even if your laser succeeds in disabling the camera, the pre-destruction footage will be saved and could potentially be used to identify/prosecute you. If you're using a laser in the visible spectrum (which you probably should, because high power infrared/ultraviolet lasers have terrifying safety concerns), you'll also be extremely visible to any bystanders, witnesses, and nosy cops while you're doing this -- it will draw a lot of attention.

  • High power lasers are dangerous to more than just cameras. They're dangerous to your eyes and the eyes of innocent bystanders. And when you're deliberately shining the laser at a partially reflective rounded target -- a camera lens -- laser beams could be reflected at almost any angle and potentially harm anyone nearby. Wearing protective laser goggles can help protect you from this (and you absolutely should be wearing them anytime you deal with high-power lasers), but with very high power lasers, they may not offer enough protection for a direct reflection, and of course they still do nothing to protect innocent bystanders who might instinctively look to see what that bright light is.

  • Even the cheap ebay lasers are still much more expensive than other, simpler means of destroying a camera. Rocks, bricks, wire cutters, spray paint, mud, and hammers are all extremely effective and cheaper/easier to acquire.

All in all, I would not recommend trying to disable cameras with lasers.

Simpler methods are much better. Smash the camera or the solar panel that powers it with a rock, brick, hammer, or other blunt object. Cover the lens with spray paint, mud, grease, or anything else that will stick to it and be difficult to clean off. Use wire cutters to snip the wires leading to/from the camera. Use screwdrivers/wrenches to disassemble it and remove it. Use a reciprocating saw or angle grinder to cut down the pole it stands on.

[–] khepri@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Well none of this applies to me since I would never never intentionally impact the profits of a corporation (it's a crime). But for some sort of filthy radical out there with nothing on their deranged mind but to harm our great society, this is eminently solid advice.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 1 day ago (2 children)

And be extra careful not to accidentally point one at a camera without face coverings and nondescript clothing or they might think you did it on purpose and try to prosecute you.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DataCrime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 day ago

Sigh… it’s just going to bounce off the lens/protective cover, take forever if it works at all, and draw a bunch of attention to yourself.

Whereas a cheap paintball gun is faster, safer, probably cheaper, verifiable, and more fun.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the creativity, passion and potential stealth… assuming you use a scope the way yabbos did years ago when they were pointing them at aircraft… but a 1+ watt laser is fairly dangerous and not easy to aim from a distance, so maybe use a tripod if you’re really hellbent on doing it this way.

Also, laser safety glasses.

In closing, a quote from one of my favorite movies “You’ll put your eye out kid!”

[–] DataCrime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 day ago

Dude probably just brought more attention to the website 😝

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 17 points 2 days ago

"Surveillance is a necessary thing...

no wait, not like THAT!!"

[–] EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

If marking privacy invading cameras run by a non-benevolent entity makes me a terrorist, then I guess I'll just add it to the list.

I also oppose fascism, assist in creation and dissemination of zines, and am pro-educating people on things like communism, socialism, and the dangers of late-stage capitalism.

And don't even get me started on my opinions of governments and borders in general.

I'm basically public enemy #1! I mean, there plenty who do more than I do, but y'know... Public enemy #56,913 doesn't sound as neat.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 14 points 1 day ago

Who surveils the surveillance?

"Terrorists", apparently.

load more comments
view more: next ›