Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2023-05-10 00:34:31 UTC - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING

This was a civil suit, not a criminal one. The plaintiff must prove their case by a mere preponderance of the evidence—not beyond reasonable doubt, as one would in a criminal case (1). As such, there are no “guilty” or “not guilty” verdicts (2). 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof 2. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/verdict/

Written by 647DBF61D295FE884688C426C64E107A75A12A31BC94E051A59A24ED205E28E6
Participant Details

All Information

• ID - 1656095334718926848
• noteId - 1656095334718926848
• participantId -
• noteAuthorParticipantId - 647DBF61D295FE884688C426C64E107A75A12A31BC94E051A59A24ED205E28E6 Participant Details
• createdAtMillis - 1683678871218
• tweetId - 1656022162795372555
• classification - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
• believable -
• harmful -
• validationDifficulty -
• misleadingOther - 0
• misleadingFactualError - 1
• misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
• misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
• misleadingMissingImportantContext - 1
• misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 0
• misleadingSatire - 0
• notMisleadingOther - 0
• notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 0
• notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
• notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
• notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 0
• trustworthySources - 1
• summary
• This was a civil suit, not a criminal one. The plaintiff must prove their case by a mere preponderance of the evidence—not beyond reasonable doubt, as one would in a criminal case (1). As such, there are no “guilty” or “not guilty” verdicts (2). 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof 2. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/verdict/