Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2023-07-01 14:59:43 UTC - NOT_MISLEADING

Tweet expresses a factually correct claim. Suggested note says the same thing in a different way. The case was based on whether or not a business owner, based on her religious beliefs, could refuse service to a gay couple. SCOTUS ruled she could. Note not needed. https://www.cpr.org/2023/06/30/supreme-court-303-creative-case-lgbtq/ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf

Written by AB5914C526F3BFE9A1365482B6BCCED22E6C6DBB92409905EBAAEE3CF2CEAE58
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/1674782348427288576

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 - 1675157239961882624
  • noteId - 1675157239961882624
  • participantId -
  • noteAuthorParticipantId - AB5914C526F3BFE9A1365482B6BCCED22E6C6DBB92409905EBAAEE3CF2CEAE58 Participant Details
  • createdAtMillis - 1688223583581
  • tweetId - 1674782348427288576
  • 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 - 0
  • trustworthySources - 1
  • summary
    • Tweet expresses a factually correct claim. Suggested note says the same thing in a different way. The case was based on whether or not a business owner, based on her religious beliefs, could refuse service to a gay couple. SCOTUS ruled she could. Note not needed. https://www.cpr.org/2023/06/30/supreme-court-303-creative-case-lgbtq/ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf

Note Status History

createdAt timestampMillisOfFirstNonNMRStatus firstNonNMRStatus timestampMillisOfCurrentStatus currentStatus timestampMillisOfLatestNonNMRStatus mostRecentNonNMRStatus participantId
2023-07-01 14:59:43 UTC
(1688223583581)
1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)
2023-07-02 02:10:08 UTC
(1688263808951)
NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS 1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)

Note Ratings

rated at rated by
2023-07-01 15:23:26 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-01 13:32:27 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-01 11:39:21 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-01 11:28:54 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-01 10:39:33 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-01 10:37:10 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-01 10:05:51 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-01 10:05:04 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-01 10:04:46 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-01 10:03:28 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-01 23:15:20 -0500 Rating Details
2023-07-01 19:36:17 -0500 Rating Details