Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2023-08-24 21:02:52 UTC - NOT_MISLEADING

Even if the above note were supported by its source (it's not) it's debunking an argument the post isn't making: there's no evidence 'refuting' the 'social contagion' theory because you can't prove a negative. The post says there is no evidence supporting it, which is true.

Written by 29A4A997A969F0CF291B0BEF0CC09F453D249DD0A2FAC99C3DD877CFE0A621B8
Participant Details

All Information

• ID - 1694817576071700754
• noteId - 1694817576071700754
• participantId -
• noteAuthorParticipantId - 29A4A997A969F0CF291B0BEF0CC09F453D249DD0A2FAC99C3DD877CFE0A621B8 Participant Details
• createdAtMillis - 1692910972979
• tweetId - 1694723758152720590
• classification - NOT_MISLEADING
• believable -
• harmful -
• validationDifficulty -
• misleadingOther - 0
• misleadingFactualError - 0
• misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
• misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
• misleadingMissingImportantContext - 0
• misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 0
• misleadingSatire - 0
• notMisleadingOther - 1
• notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 1
• notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
• notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
• notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 0
• trustworthySources - 0
• summary
• Even if the above note were supported by its source (it's not) it's debunking an argument the post isn't making: there's no evidence 'refuting' the 'social contagion' theory because you can't prove a negative. The post says there is no evidence supporting it, which is true.