Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2024-06-21 14:11:49 UTC - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING

In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled that China’s “nine-dash line” has no legal basis, confirming the waters around the Spratly Islands, including Second Thomas Shoal or Ayungin Shoal, are within the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/

Written by 68F16D397F7F08A7073DAA4BE62E5666139FCE8CFE66ED772DB5233DD4FE519C
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/1804102441883045967

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 - 1804155263928401928
  • noteId - 1804155263928401928
  • participantId -
  • noteAuthorParticipantId - 68F16D397F7F08A7073DAA4BE62E5666139FCE8CFE66ED772DB5233DD4FE519C Participant Details
  • createdAtMillis - 1718979109161
  • tweetId - 1804102441883045967
  • 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
    • In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled that China’s “nine-dash line” has no legal basis, confirming the waters around the Spratly Islands, including Second Thomas Shoal or Ayungin Shoal, are within the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/

Note Status History

createdAt timestampMillisOfFirstNonNMRStatus firstNonNMRStatus timestampMillisOfCurrentStatus currentStatus timestampMillisOfLatestNonNMRStatus mostRecentNonNMRStatus participantId
2024-06-21 14:11:49 UTC
(1718979109161)
2024-06-22 07:00:53 UTC
(1719039653433)
CURRENTLY_RATED_HELPFUL 2024-06-23 05:33:17 UTC
(1719120797745)
CURRENTLY_RATED_HELPFUL 2024-06-22 07:00:53 UTC
(1719039653433)
CURRENTLY_RATED_HELPFUL

Note Ratings

rated at rated by
2024-06-22 12:44:59 -0500 Rating Details
2024-06-22 09:04:02 -0500 Rating Details
2024-06-22 03:52:50 -0500 Rating Details
2024-06-22 00:03:28 -0500 Rating Details
2024-06-21 18:56:06 -0500 Rating Details
2024-06-21 17:47:57 -0500 Rating Details
2024-06-21 14:40:14 -0500 Rating Details
2024-06-21 13:20:08 -0500 Rating Details
2024-06-21 11:16:46 -0500 Rating Details
2024-06-23 00:13:48 -0500 Rating Details
2024-06-21 23:23:02 -0500 Rating Details
2024-06-21 13:15:26 -0500 Rating Details
2024-06-21 11:18:04 -0500 Rating Details