Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2023-12-19 17:43:14 UTC - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING

A systematic review by Cochrane found no evidence that masks are effective against COVID-19 and other respiratory illnesses. This included 11 new RCTs, now total 78 included RCTs (610,872 patients). The type of mask - cloth, surgical, N95 - makes no difference. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6

Written by 980120E581F3CF139EFEDA3C04E3491A2FD0CB680E84D4E7AF213971C17B52B9
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/1736827473323602163

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 - 1737166714167586917
  • noteId - 1737166714167586917
  • participantId -
  • noteAuthorParticipantId - 980120E581F3CF139EFEDA3C04E3491A2FD0CB680E84D4E7AF213971C17B52B9 Participant Details
  • createdAtMillis - 1703007794309
  • tweetId - 1736827473323602163
  • classification - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
  • believable -
  • harmful -
  • validationDifficulty -
  • misleadingOther - 0
  • misleadingFactualError - 1
  • misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
  • misleadingOutdatedInformation - 1
  • misleadingMissingImportantContext - 1
  • misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 1
  • misleadingSatire - 0
  • notMisleadingOther - 0
  • notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 0
  • notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
  • notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
  • notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 0
  • trustworthySources - 1
  • summary
    • A systematic review by Cochrane found no evidence that masks are effective against COVID-19 and other respiratory illnesses. This included 11 new RCTs, now total 78 included RCTs (610,872 patients). The type of mask - cloth, surgical, N95 - makes no difference. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6

Note Status History

createdAt timestampMillisOfFirstNonNMRStatus firstNonNMRStatus timestampMillisOfCurrentStatus currentStatus timestampMillisOfLatestNonNMRStatus mostRecentNonNMRStatus participantId
2023-12-19 17:43:14 UTC
(1703007794309)
2023-12-19 21:05:57 UTC
(1703019957969)
CURRENTLY_RATED_NOT_HELPFUL 2023-12-20 01:07:15 UTC
(1703034435695)
CURRENTLY_RATED_NOT_HELPFUL 2023-12-19 21:05:57 UTC
(1703019957969)
CURRENTLY_RATED_NOT_HELPFUL

Note Ratings

rated at rated by
2023-12-19 17:26:58 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-19 17:20:57 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-19 16:29:16 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-19 15:53:24 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-19 14:47:36 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-19 14:41:20 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-19 14:04:54 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-19 14:00:26 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-19 13:18:44 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-19 13:05:26 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-19 12:56:16 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-19 12:45:51 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-19 12:28:08 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-19 12:24:46 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-19 12:02:43 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-20 13:41:56 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-20 13:35:59 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-20 06:48:08 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-19 21:39:18 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-19 21:15:34 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-19 21:06:33 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-19 20:41:43 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-19 20:27:34 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-19 19:25:46 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-21 18:13:53 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-21 03:43:52 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-20 19:52:22 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-22 04:08:10 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-23 09:55:41 -0600 Rating Details
2024-01-22 03:10:50 -0600 Rating Details