Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2023-06-27 12:42:10 UTC - NOT_MISLEADING

This is a case where the individual making the statement is an expert in the field and, just like an expert witness testifying in a court of law, their subject matter expertise makes their testimony admissible as fact. He is an expert. The necessary source is the tweet itself.

Written by 2E7B5DB177131724578E3A7ACBE7A4DF285A53E403077833EDC7599B8D7A5A27
Participant Details

All Information

• ID - 1673673074430935041
• noteId - 1673673074430935041
• participantId -
• noteAuthorParticipantId - 2E7B5DB177131724578E3A7ACBE7A4DF285A53E403077833EDC7599B8D7A5A27 Participant Details
• createdAtMillis - 1687869730942
• tweetId - 1673631994712825857
• classification - NOT_MISLEADING
• believable -
• harmful -
• validationDifficulty -
• misleadingOther - 0
• misleadingFactualError - 0
• misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
• misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
• misleadingMissingImportantContext - 0
• misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 0
• misleadingSatire - 0
• notMisleadingOther - 0
• notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 1
• notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
• notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
• notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 1
• trustworthySources - 0
• summary
• This is a case where the individual making the statement is an expert in the field and, just like an expert witness testifying in a court of law, their subject matter expertise makes their testimony admissible as fact. He is an expert. The necessary source is the tweet itself.