Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2023-09-13 22:25:52 UTC - NOT_MISLEADING

NNN The community is claiming that the SarsCov2 vaccine was, or is not effective, which is besides the point, as the post did not talk about the vaccine. The original claim is factual, as per the linked study, andthere have been results that allow comparisons to AIDS, as per https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2319417023000872

Written by 27932E0831DAA037C11221DDCDFCCE44DB545A92887CAEDC589789CC5D1C8D32
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/1701965968996553004

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 - 1702086220153589941
  • noteId - 1702086220153589941
  • participantId -
  • noteAuthorParticipantId - 27932E0831DAA037C11221DDCDFCCE44DB545A92887CAEDC589789CC5D1C8D32 Participant Details
  • createdAtMillis - 1694643952774
  • tweetId - 1701965968996553004
  • 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
    • NNN The community is claiming that the SarsCov2 vaccine was, or is not effective, which is besides the point, as the post did not talk about the vaccine. The original claim is factual, as per the linked study, andthere have been results that allow comparisons to AIDS, as per https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2319417023000872

Note Status History

createdAt timestampMillisOfFirstNonNMRStatus firstNonNMRStatus timestampMillisOfCurrentStatus currentStatus timestampMillisOfLatestNonNMRStatus mostRecentNonNMRStatus participantId
2023-09-13 22:25:52 UTC
(1694643952774)
1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)
2023-09-15 01:40:54 UTC
(1694742054714)
NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS 1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)

Note Ratings

rated at rated by
2023-09-13 18:19:27 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-13 17:50:18 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-13 17:35:26 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-14 15:46:28 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-14 15:16:21 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-14 10:45:36 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-14 10:24:18 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-14 06:31:52 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-14 06:13:55 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-14 03:35:46 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-14 03:32:19 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-14 03:25:56 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-14 03:02:37 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-14 02:24:09 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-14 02:12:07 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-14 01:23:40 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-14 00:52:55 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-14 00:17:29 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-13 23:42:10 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-13 20:31:20 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-13 20:27:28 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-13 20:00:13 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-13 19:51:57 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-15 03:57:36 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-15 03:55:17 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-17 08:53:16 -0500 Rating Details
2023-09-25 03:37:59 -0500 Rating Details