this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
558 points (97.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

10494 readers
4826 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 a post is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Be nice. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements to private messages.
  7. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 43 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

I'd be surprised if there were any legal consequences for something like this. It's not a "booby trap" in the traditional sense where it poses a danger to legitimate visitors or emergency responders entering a property. It is a solid structure inside another (seemingly less solid) structure. You should already not be trying to ram into it. It poses zero risk to anyone that doesn't already intent to maliciously destroy the apparently less solid structure.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 hours ago

The post itself is just clickbait, but legal consequences are not all that clear. It's honestly mostly about intent.

Here's a case where a guy's mailbox kept getting run over so he rebuilt it with a railroad tie and an 8" pipe burried 3 ft in the ground packed with concrete, and the guy who smashed it destroyed his car and paralyzed himself. https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2021/SCO/1124/201057.asp#.YaUu6xZOnDs

It went all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court where they found with a lack of intent to harm, the owners were not at fault, but that's a near miss. He said he filled the 8" post with dry concrete mix so if it rained it might 'firm up' which is sus and then buried it 36" in the ground testifying he was confident it would 'lay over' if struck. I'm not saying he wasn't morally in the right, but there's no way those to statements were factual accounts of how that went down. of course, the driver seeing an 8" post under a mailbox would have been equally insane trying to run through it. I'm thinking with a different set of lawyers, intent wouldn't have been all that hard to prove.

Also, could you imagine needing to employ a lawyer through several court cases, an appeal, and ultimately state supreme court hearings to keep from being responsible.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 30 points 14 hours ago

And it plausibly helps support the snow. There is a lwgitimate purpose.

[–] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk 15 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

we have issues in the UK with something like this. if you pay road tax you can park anywhere that isn't parking controlled, including outside peoples houses (so long as you're not restricting their access to the highway). some homeowners started putting traffic cones out to "reserve" the spot outside their homes (you cant legally do this btw).

People would just push them out of the way with their cars so homeowners started filling them with concrete.

Putting one of those in the road absolutely can and does get you in trouble

[–] Mesophar@pawb.social 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Doesn't it depend where the obstacle is, though? I'm assuming these are cars parking on the road, or at least a shoulder or driveway. If the cars are pulling up onto a front lawn and parking under the kitchen window of a house, that's entirely different. I'm pretty sure filling a traffic cone with concrete and placing it in a path a car is expected to drive on is going to get you in trouble anywhere. I doubt building a snowman with a stump or concrete core in the middle of a lawn on private property would get you in trouble in most places.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

It would be illegal for others to park if it was actually on the property people want to own the public road next to their property