Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2024-03-04 00:41:00 UTC - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING

post says that "at least $100 million" The article referred to says "$100 million." Also, in the past year, AIPAC spent only ~$8 million (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=Q05), so the 3 anonymous sources in the article may also be exaggerating. @ggreenwald presents an unverified claim as fact.

Written by E8D7008A9CBA4D09D8BADF2940992C80AC0D0CE1C37249BFB75A4D43ED6D6EEF
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/1764357712194703648

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 - 1764450939493384416
  • noteId - 1764450939493384416
  • participantId -
  • noteAuthorParticipantId - E8D7008A9CBA4D09D8BADF2940992C80AC0D0CE1C37249BFB75A4D43ED6D6EEF Participant Details
  • createdAtMillis - 1709512860545
  • tweetId - 1764357712194703648
  • 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
    • post says that "at least $100 million" The article referred to says "$100 million." Also, in the past year, AIPAC spent only ~$8 million (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=Q05), so the 3 anonymous sources in the article may also be exaggerating. @ggreenwald presents an unverified claim as fact.

Note Status History

createdAt timestampMillisOfFirstNonNMRStatus firstNonNMRStatus timestampMillisOfCurrentStatus currentStatus timestampMillisOfLatestNonNMRStatus mostRecentNonNMRStatus participantId
2024-03-04 00:41:00 UTC
(1709512860545)
2024-03-04 10:27:40 UTC
(1709548060192)
CURRENTLY_RATED_NOT_HELPFUL 2024-03-07 12:28:42 UTC
(1709814522945)
NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS 2024-03-04 10:27:40 UTC
(1709548060192)
CURRENTLY_RATED_NOT_HELPFUL

Note Ratings

rated at rated by
2024-03-03 23:52:21 -0600 Rating Details
2024-03-03 21:41:59 -0600 Rating Details
2024-03-03 21:13:36 -0600 Rating Details
2024-03-03 19:46:31 -0600 Rating Details
2024-03-06 18:28:07 -0600 Rating Details
2024-03-04 02:26:12 -0600 Rating Details
2024-03-04 01:52:43 -0600 Rating Details
2024-06-05 16:38:36 -0500 Rating Details