Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2023-02-07 02:51:37 UTC - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING

There is no scientific evidence for earthquake prediction. There is always a chance for earthquakes at active faults, but specific forecasts like these perform no better than random when tested. Learn more: https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/can-you-predict-earthquakes https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/earthquakes/earthquakes-probabilities https://pnsn.org/outreach/faq/earthquake-prediction https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2019/predicting-next-big-earthquake/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-we-predict-earthquakes-at-all1/ User's history of similar pseudoscience claims: https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz4jyz/earthquake-conspiracy-theorists-are-wreaking-havoc-during-emergencies https://www.inverse.com/science/earthquake-prediction-dutchsinse-holmquist-conspiracy

Written by 114D3959B7A1FAF013A9773725D3AC9653F490590C8B76CB7CE232B010DE900E
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/1622627768675467265

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 - 1622790155344936960
  • noteId - 1622790155344936960
  • participantId - 114D3959B7A1FAF013A9773725D3AC9653F490590C8B76CB7CE232B010DE900E
  • noteAuthorParticipantId -
  • createdAtMillis - 1675738297672
  • tweetId - 1622627768675467265
  • classification - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
  • believable -
  • harmful -
  • validationDifficulty -
  • misleadingOther - 0
  • misleadingFactualError - 1
  • misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
  • misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
  • misleadingMissingImportantContext - 1
  • misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 1
  • misleadingSatire - 0
  • notMisleadingOther - 0
  • notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 0
  • notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
  • notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
  • notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 0
  • trustworthySources - 1
  • summary
    • There is no scientific evidence for earthquake prediction. There is always a chance for earthquakes at active faults, but specific forecasts like these perform no better than random when tested. Learn more: https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/can-you-predict-earthquakes https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/earthquakes/earthquakes-probabilities https://pnsn.org/outreach/faq/earthquake-prediction https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2019/predicting-next-big-earthquake/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-we-predict-earthquakes-at-all1/ User's history of similar pseudoscience claims: https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz4jyz/earthquake-conspiracy-theorists-are-wreaking-havoc-during-emergencies https://www.inverse.com/science/earthquake-prediction-dutchsinse-holmquist-conspiracy

Note Status History

createdAt timestampMillisOfFirstNonNMRStatus firstNonNMRStatus timestampMillisOfCurrentStatus currentStatus timestampMillisOfLatestNonNMRStatus mostRecentNonNMRStatus participantId
2023-02-07 02:51:37 UTC
(1675738297672)		 1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)		 2023-03-04 02:08:34 UTC
(1677895714406)		 NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS 1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)

Note Ratings

rated at rated by
2023-02-07 00:39:18 -0600 04CF5F8796A05E73A6D9C4C349E65BA6427994DF49C7FFA2E1EA5787881659F3 Rating Details
2023-02-06 20:53:16 -0600 177DF82A5EB15864426E4331D1586145F645ADE431FAB74AD83D73FCE15CDC2D Rating Details
2023-02-07 01:41:03 -0600 1E63C4F17963B9C5B4489BFDF29FE99946F4AFDBE9F44C5F9A9F6119EB7A78A4 Rating Details
2023-02-07 03:14:11 -0600 248AF2C00311C9F2DD11E002DB33E10A8DC3628D3FBD291637F8070AF4799E42 Rating Details
2023-02-07 12:57:38 -0600 3440E327FFC09396E77E3C806B2CE63500A27905ABDA4DA599C2EFB3935307B4 Rating Details
2023-02-07 02:42:28 -0600 383A5928EA218ECEAF1C30503E1C569E7455081923D2B6DABA6AE45AA523861D Rating Details
2023-02-07 02:24:57 -0600 3E0AD8AC072ECBAFF057E101D8BF757F86DA0E064D6309B49F526806C7DD7A63 Rating Details
2023-02-06 20:53:19 -0600 45B8EF43682258D990F1C39DD9C1C131E030B7B116A1A874CAD37AED55F98C04 Rating Details
2023-02-06 23:19:30 -0600 568ADFB5739FF4CEDFA5C4E7FB0AD45429CC3493C13B015B42838188A73D82B5 Rating Details
2023-02-07 00:37:33 -0600 8397B8EFF5E66D74E3D766849AAD6651C15A83BE48BE57BF0E5A1A8D5A1A4AE7 Rating Details
2023-02-07 01:57:00 -0600 99956CAFCE783FAB0A1F6DC1461DBF09DE8D6178BECDCFC4BE89332469B19A0D Rating Details
2023-02-07 08:52:32 -0600 A2D590EA38347D823CF66685E74BB70D3FE96E47826D36E164587A9628CD1353 Rating Details
2023-02-06 20:56:06 -0600 A6D850F1A9BA2EAFC0EBCBED78305190257A07B281359A955FE2D25A3FAEAEC5 Rating Details
2023-02-06 21:15:11 -0600 C378931E048482D2BFDF00DC95644D6377CBCB812C79FF87D77B5E48595B3DA3 Rating Details
2023-02-06 22:49:18 -0600 C966E0BA5803EDA2B9ADEA1A226B5D5FB13629349A2D9A920F01C5137F8AF13B Rating Details
2023-02-06 22:03:53 -0600 Rating Details
2023-02-07 00:04:20 -0600 Rating Details
2023-02-06 20:53:16 -0600 Rating Details
2023-02-06 22:49:18 -0600 Rating Details
2023-02-07 01:41:03 -0600 Rating Details
2023-02-06 20:53:19 -0600 Rating Details
2023-02-07 00:39:18 -0600 Rating Details
2023-02-06 21:15:11 -0600 Rating Details
2023-02-07 00:37:33 -0600 Rating Details
2023-02-07 03:14:11 -0600 Rating Details
2023-02-07 01:57:00 -0600 Rating Details
2023-02-06 22:03:53 -0600 Rating Details
2023-02-07 12:57:38 -0600 Rating Details
2023-02-07 00:04:20 -0600 Rating Details
2023-02-07 02:24:57 -0600 Rating Details
2023-02-06 23:19:30 -0600 Rating Details
2023-02-07 02:42:28 -0600 Rating Details
2023-02-06 20:56:06 -0600 Rating Details
2023-02-07 08:52:32 -0600 Rating Details