Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2024-12-09 01:20:58 UTC - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING

This is not what the court said. The appeals court did not rule COVID vaccines are not vaccines. The ruling does not prevent LAUSD from mandating COVID vaccines in the future. The court vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/22-55908/22-55908-2024-06-07.html https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.34WA2BX

Written by 2A6B630D0AEA2ACC36E2189A989B042C8F44788D5C6526EF4EAC8856A79A73D8
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/1865894197183529374

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 - 1865929597654536288
  • noteId - 1865929597654536288
  • participantId -
  • noteAuthorParticipantId - 2A6B630D0AEA2ACC36E2189A989B042C8F44788D5C6526EF4EAC8856A79A73D8
  • createdAtMillis - 1733707258034
  • tweetId - 1865894197183529374
  • classification - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
  • believable -
  • harmful -
  • validationDifficulty -
  • misleadingOther - 0
  • misleadingFactualError - 1
  • misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
  • misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
  • misleadingMissingImportantContext - 0
  • misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 1
  • misleadingSatire - 0
  • notMisleadingOther - 0
  • notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 0
  • notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
  • notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
  • notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 0
  • trustworthySources - 1
  • summary
    • This is not what the court said. The appeals court did not rule COVID vaccines are not vaccines. The ruling does not prevent LAUSD from mandating COVID vaccines in the future. The court vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/22-55908/22-55908-2024-06-07.html https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.34WA2BX

Note Ratings

rated at rated by
2024-12-09 20:47:26 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 16:07:11 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 15:48:29 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 14:55:30 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 12:07:11 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 10:28:31 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 08:22:07 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 05:55:36 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 05:34:44 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 05:01:42 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 04:20:28 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 04:00:00 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 03:56:07 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 03:44:37 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 02:23:36 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 02:10:49 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 00:40:11 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-08 23:47:25 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-08 22:39:44 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-08 22:12:31 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-08 21:26:28 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-08 21:11:46 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-08 20:57:15 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-08 20:56:02 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-08 20:49:56 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-08 20:25:39 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-08 20:15:50 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-08 19:26:55 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-10 15:03:39 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-10 13:13:49 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 08:23:03 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 06:39:29 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 05:31:59 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 00:53:45 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-09 00:42:21 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-08 21:52:55 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-08 21:10:46 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-08 20:47:58 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-08 20:32:43 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-08 20:17:54 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-08 19:42:02 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-08 19:33:33 -0600 Rating Details
2024-12-08 19:25:46 -0600 Rating Details