Birdwatch Note
2023-07-01 16:15:55 UTC - NOT_MISLEADING
Tweet expresses an opinion on factually correct claims. The case was based on whether or not a business owner, based on her personal beliefs, could refuse to provide services “celebrating marriages she does not endorse.” 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/1674835383732015104
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 - 1675176417141874688
- noteId - 1675176417141874688
- participantId -
- noteAuthorParticipantId - AB5914C526F3BFE9A1365482B6BCCED22E6C6DBB92409905EBAAEE3CF2CEAE58 Participant Details
- createdAtMillis - 1688228155776
- tweetId - 1674835383732015104
- 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 - 1
- summary
- Tweet expresses an opinion on factually correct claims. The case was based on whether or not a business owner, based on her personal beliefs, could refuse to provide services “celebrating marriages she does not endorse.” 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 16:15:55 UTC (1688228155776) |
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 15:16:28 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-01 14:55:27 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-01 14:11:40 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-01 13:31:13 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-01 13:26:54 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-01 13:24:24 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-01 12:50:01 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-01 11:34:20 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-01 19:35:53 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-04 13:03:01 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-04 11:23:52 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-04 07:54:43 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-04 03:44:50 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-04 01:55:54 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-04 01:32:31 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-04 00:29:32 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-03 23:58:32 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-03 23:24:03 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-03 22:38:26 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-07 20:26:01 -0500 | Rating Details |