Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2023-10-01 17:21:31 UTC - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING

Article falsely states that Forstater judgment called GC beliefs “profoundly offensive and distressing”. Instead, the judgment said [116] BOTH GC beliefs AND the author’s beliefs “may well be [p.o & d] to many others” but [118a] did not comment on merit of either belief. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf

Written by 64BD42B72A3C2F1BA89EB62222FF540EE7F4960D4034E1EFD589C5288DE404AB
Participant Details

All Information

• ID - 1708532608315900383
• noteId - 1708532608315900383
• participantId -
• noteAuthorParticipantId - 64BD42B72A3C2F1BA89EB62222FF540EE7F4960D4034E1EFD589C5288DE404AB Participant Details
• createdAtMillis - 1696180891486
• tweetId - 1708446730616738270
• classification - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
• believable -
• harmful -
• validationDifficulty -
• misleadingOther - 0
• misleadingFactualError - 1
• misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
• misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
• misleadingMissingImportantContext - 1
• misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 1
• misleadingSatire - 0
• notMisleadingOther - 0
• notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 0
• notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
• notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
• notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 0
• trustworthySources - 1
• summary
• Article falsely states that Forstater judgment called GC beliefs “profoundly offensive and distressing”. Instead, the judgment said [116] BOTH GC beliefs AND the author’s beliefs “may well be [p.o & d] to many others” but [118a] did not comment on merit of either belief. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf