Birdwatch Note
2023-06-19 23:05:59 UTC - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
It was not "mathematically impossible" to win the vote. If a majority of MPs had been persuaded by this argument, then the Privileges Committee motion would not have passed. They were not, and it passed.
Written by 2033ECEB54AFADC465BE30839DF143622FE268F4CD44EC8E1FB5BED46993B5F5
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/1670908289951969281
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 - 1670930956604112899
- noteId - 1670930956604112899
- participantId -
- noteAuthorParticipantId - 2033ECEB54AFADC465BE30839DF143622FE268F4CD44EC8E1FB5BED46993B5F5 Participant Details
- createdAtMillis - 1687215959108
- tweetId - 1670908289951969281
- classification - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
- believable -
- harmful -
- validationDifficulty -
- misleadingOther - 0
- misleadingFactualError - 1
- misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
- misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
- misleadingMissingImportantContext - 0
- misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 1
- misleadingSatire - 0
- notMisleadingOther - 0
- notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 0
- notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
- notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
- notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 0
- trustworthySources - 0
- summary
- It was not "mathematically impossible" to win the vote. If a majority of MPs had been persuaded by this argument, then the Privileges Committee motion would not have passed. They were not, and it passed.
Note Status History
| createdAt | timestampMillisOfFirstNonNMRStatus | firstNonNMRStatus | timestampMillisOfCurrentStatus | currentStatus | timestampMillisOfLatestNonNMRStatus | mostRecentNonNMRStatus | participantId |
| 2023-06-19 23:05:59 UTC (1687215959108) |
1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC (-1) |
2023-06-20 02:11:46 UTC (1687227106707) |
NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC (-1) |
Note Ratings
| rated at | rated by | |
| 2023-06-19 18:51:53 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-19 18:42:45 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-19 18:35:54 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-19 18:31:37 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-19 18:29:00 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-19 18:17:24 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-19 18:15:44 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-20 10:43:35 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-20 10:13:07 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-20 06:51:29 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-20 03:44:50 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-20 03:24:47 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-20 02:43:24 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-20 02:24:09 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-20 02:21:51 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-20 02:20:38 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-20 02:06:22 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-20 02:06:16 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-20 01:35:46 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-20 01:35:44 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-20 00:55:28 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-20 00:13:19 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-19 22:52:01 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-19 22:11:16 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-06-19 19:39:49 -0500 | Rating Details |