this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
715 points (96.5% liked)

Microblog Memes

10807 readers
1574 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 45 points 1 week ago (10 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 2 points 6 days ago (3 children)

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.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago

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.

The “I would sue”/“you should sue!” crowd isn’t listening!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)