Birdwatch Note
2023-07-10 10:35:22 UTC - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
The case was not ruled upon as it dismissed due to the lack of legal standing by the appellant. The judges however did comment and reported they were divided on the issue of the case (LGB Alliance’s charity status). The case may be brought back by someone with legal standing. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Mermaids-v-Charity-Commission-judgment-060723.pdf
Written by A810D698AFE883C5D86CF2E98FCBAF6BE6E24CB8497B04CB22A36660E5EDCF48
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/1678022685928898560
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 - 1678352203180916736
- noteId - 1678352203180916736
- participantId -
- noteAuthorParticipantId - A810D698AFE883C5D86CF2E98FCBAF6BE6E24CB8497B04CB22A36660E5EDCF48 Participant Details
- createdAtMillis - 1688985322168
- tweetId - 1678022685928898560
- 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
- The case was not ruled upon as it dismissed due to the lack of legal standing by the appellant. The judges however did comment and reported they were divided on the issue of the case (LGB Alliance’s charity status). The case may be brought back by someone with legal standing. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Mermaids-v-Charity-Commission-judgment-060723.pdf
Note Status History
| createdAt | timestampMillisOfFirstNonNMRStatus | firstNonNMRStatus | timestampMillisOfCurrentStatus | currentStatus | timestampMillisOfLatestNonNMRStatus | mostRecentNonNMRStatus | participantId |
| 2023-07-10 10:35:22 UTC (1688985322168) |
1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC (-1) |
2023-07-11 02:09:54 UTC (1689041394513) |
NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC (-1) |
Note Ratings
| rated at | rated by | |
| 2023-07-10 14:36:56 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-10 11:21:02 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-10 10:23:49 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-10 10:10:18 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-10 10:00:19 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-10 09:52:32 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-10 09:22:05 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-10 08:50:57 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-10 08:27:34 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-10 07:34:12 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-10 07:21:46 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-10 06:15:32 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-10 06:09:17 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-10 06:07:55 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-18 04:42:02 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-08-06 03:14:06 -0500 | Rating Details |