Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2023-11-06 21:54:06 UTC - NOT_MISLEADING

Dont agree that votes are balanced, kept in check or MUST be agree (especially MUST)- it should be based on rational thinking or critical factors. On the Israel/Gaza issue, many CN are NOT helpful decided cause they are voted obviously on a personal biased opinion. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050747

Written by 71183A674451C6A74D53A8831AB6F5B20979E26A0BD12D423E37BE4D2D27914C
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/1721625189371232521

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 - 1721647167482253474
  • noteId - 1721647167482253474
  • participantId -
  • noteAuthorParticipantId - 71183A674451C6A74D53A8831AB6F5B20979E26A0BD12D423E37BE4D2D27914C Participant Details
  • createdAtMillis - 1699307646044
  • tweetId - 1721625189371232521
  • classification - NOT_MISLEADING
  • believable -
  • harmful -
  • validationDifficulty -
  • misleadingOther - 0
  • misleadingFactualError - 0
  • misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
  • misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
  • misleadingMissingImportantContext - 0
  • misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 0
  • misleadingSatire - 0
  • notMisleadingOther - 1
  • notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 0
  • notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
  • notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
  • notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 0
  • trustworthySources - 1
  • summary
    • Dont agree that votes are balanced, kept in check or MUST be agree (especially MUST)- it should be based on rational thinking or critical factors. On the Israel/Gaza issue, many CN are NOT helpful decided cause they are voted obviously on a personal biased opinion. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050747

Note Status History

createdAt timestampMillisOfFirstNonNMRStatus firstNonNMRStatus timestampMillisOfCurrentStatus currentStatus timestampMillisOfLatestNonNMRStatus mostRecentNonNMRStatus participantId
2023-11-06 21:54:06 UTC
(1699307646044)
2023-11-07 00:49:36 UTC
(1699318176753)
CURRENTLY_RATED_NOT_HELPFUL 2023-11-07 03:05:44 UTC
(1699326344811)
CURRENTLY_RATED_NOT_HELPFUL 2023-11-07 00:49:36 UTC
(1699318176753)
CURRENTLY_RATED_NOT_HELPFUL

Note Ratings

rated at rated by
2023-11-06 18:02:13 -0600 Rating Details
2023-11-06 16:19:31 -0600 Rating Details
2023-11-06 16:14:11 -0600 Rating Details
2023-11-06 16:11:28 -0600 Rating Details
2023-11-06 16:07:17 -0600 Rating Details
2023-11-06 20:08:25 -0600 Rating Details
2023-11-06 18:45:43 -0600 Rating Details
2023-11-08 00:05:30 -0600 Rating Details