Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2022-06-28 23:25:00 UTC - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING

Hunter Saenz is trying to stoke fears by pushing debunked conspiracy theories about the over turning of Roe and Casey. Even though the opinion was extremely flimsy no one has yet to challenge Obergefell and it is extremely unlikely. If it was it go back to the states https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Written by 9CC5B1B6C950A2BEFBCA16E11C5380BE
Participant Details

Original Tweet

Tweet embedding is no longer reliably available, due to the platform's instability (in terms of both technology and policy). If the Tweet still exists, you can view it here: https://twitter.com/foo_bar/status/1541923192377319425

Please note, though, that you may need to have your own Twitter account to access that page. I am currently exploring options for archiving Tweet data in a post-API context.

All Information

  • ID - 1541925662100955137
  • noteId - 1541925662100955137
  • participantId - 9CC5B1B6C950A2BEFBCA16E11C5380BE
  • noteAuthorParticipantId -
  • createdAtMillis - 1656458700097
  • tweetId - 1541923192377319425
  • classification - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
  • believable - BELIEVABLE_BY_MANY
  • harmful - CONSIDERABLE_HARM
  • validationDifficulty - EASY
  • misleadingOther - 1
  • misleadingFactualError - 1
  • misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
  • misleadingOutdatedInformation - 1
  • misleadingMissingImportantContext - 1
  • misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 1
  • misleadingSatire - 1
  • notMisleadingOther - 0
  • notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 0
  • notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
  • notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
  • notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 0
  • trustworthySources - 1
  • summary
    • Hunter Saenz is trying to stoke fears by pushing debunked conspiracy theories about the over turning of Roe and Casey. Even though the opinion was extremely flimsy no one has yet to challenge Obergefell and it is extremely unlikely. If it was it go back to the states https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Note Status History

createdAt timestampMillisOfFirstNonNMRStatus firstNonNMRStatus timestampMillisOfCurrentStatus currentStatus timestampMillisOfLatestNonNMRStatus mostRecentNonNMRStatus participantId
2022-06-28 23:25:00 UTC
(1656458700097)
1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)
1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)
1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)
AA5D10DCF77936F7ED0832A32CF84C30151B6F0FD3BF5BADEED53B9F296D3F7E
2022-06-28 23:25:00 UTC
(1656458700097)
1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)
1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)
1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)
9CC5B1B6C950A2BEFBCA16E11C5380BE

Note Ratings

rated at rated by
2022-07-14 21:21:48 -0500 58DF54439BB87FA9A8B079053E570A66 Rating Details
2022-07-14 21:21:48 -0500 9D63BA103D90D8A76C6AE87E7D28DC98DD609186A0BDB59AB7FE8975ADA24401 Rating Details
2022-12-21 00:59:40 -0600 E343F092F0B44A6E8DEC7F3A16DFE90A5DA9F420CB1B9EDE2292D0B45E00C827 Rating Details
2022-07-14 21:21:48 -0500 Rating Details
2022-12-21 00:59:40 -0600 Rating Details