Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2023-05-28 11:17:54 UTC - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING

Justice Alito, not Barrett, wrote for the 5-4 majority, imposing new limits on the EPA. Justices Kavanaugh, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson did not agree with the new limits. They did agree with the case at hand, thus it was a unanimous ruling in favor of the Sacketts. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf

Written by B938B38317E09E727FF9F04375503A61AE44A3528FC9FC28D59B3018E95F9232
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/1662767438289596416

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 - 1662780228849082368
  • noteId - 1662780228849082368
  • participantId -
  • noteAuthorParticipantId - B938B38317E09E727FF9F04375503A61AE44A3528FC9FC28D59B3018E95F9232 Participant Details
  • createdAtMillis - 1685272674177
  • tweetId - 1662767438289596416
  • classification - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
  • believable -
  • harmful -
  • validationDifficulty -
  • misleadingOther - 0
  • misleadingFactualError - 1
  • misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
  • misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
  • misleadingMissingImportantContext - 0
  • misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 0
  • misleadingSatire - 0
  • notMisleadingOther - 0
  • notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 0
  • notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
  • notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
  • notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 0
  • trustworthySources - 1
  • summary
    • Justice Alito, not Barrett, wrote for the 5-4 majority, imposing new limits on the EPA. Justices Kavanaugh, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson did not agree with the new limits. They did agree with the case at hand, thus it was a unanimous ruling in favor of the Sacketts. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf

Note Status History

createdAt timestampMillisOfFirstNonNMRStatus firstNonNMRStatus timestampMillisOfCurrentStatus currentStatus timestampMillisOfLatestNonNMRStatus mostRecentNonNMRStatus participantId
2023-05-28 11:17:54 UTC
(1685272674177)
1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)
2023-05-31 02:39:52 UTC
(1685500792003)
NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS 1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)

Note Ratings

rated at rated by
2023-05-28 22:34:35 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 14:34:35 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 13:43:18 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 12:47:07 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 11:58:56 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 11:51:35 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 11:39:05 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 11:22:48 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 11:19:06 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 11:17:37 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 10:52:10 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 10:24:47 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 10:06:54 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 09:48:49 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 09:30:23 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 09:28:24 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 08:56:20 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 08:48:36 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 08:30:08 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 08:28:11 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 08:00:57 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 07:39:25 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 07:33:43 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 07:29:08 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 07:26:54 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 07:23:25 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 07:09:30 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 07:08:50 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 07:05:19 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 07:03:03 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 07:00:45 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 06:47:40 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 06:30:49 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 06:28:54 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 06:28:31 -0500 Rating Details
2023-05-28 06:27:21 -0500 Rating Details