Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2025-02-17 11:45:03 UTC - NOT_MISLEADING

COBOL being the language used to manage social security data bases does not explain the range of ages seen here as all null field would default to the exact same age, not the range of ages seen here. https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/31288/does-or-did-cobol-default-to-1875-05-20-for-corrupt-or-missing-dates

Written by 232E8F4ADA5A37399B98D3F92779C881AF07D226EBE5BF5D695787CC62EAA776
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/1891357969650196589

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 - 1891453806430372046
  • noteId - 1891453806430372046
  • participantId -
  • noteAuthorParticipantId - 232E8F4ADA5A37399B98D3F92779C881AF07D226EBE5BF5D695787CC62EAA776
  • createdAtMillis - 1739792703625
  • tweetId - 1891357969650196589
  • classification - NOT_MISLEADING
  • believable -
  • harmful -
  • validationDifficulty -
  • misleadingOther - 0
  • misleadingFactualError - 0
  • misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
  • misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
  • misleadingMissingImportantContext - 0
  • misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 0
  • misleadingSatire - 0
  • notMisleadingOther - 0
  • notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 1
  • notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
  • notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
  • notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 0
  • trustworthySources - 1
  • summary
    • COBOL being the language used to manage social security data bases does not explain the range of ages seen here as all null field would default to the exact same age, not the range of ages seen here. https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/31288/does-or-did-cobol-default-to-1875-05-20-for-corrupt-or-missing-dates

Note Ratings

rated at rated by
2025-02-17 18:55:13 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 12:39:47 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 11:04:37 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 09:08:26 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 08:30:28 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 08:18:10 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 07:52:18 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 07:52:01 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 07:43:15 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 07:32:21 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 07:30:42 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 06:50:50 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 06:49:47 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 06:28:06 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 06:33:44 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 06:22:24 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 06:17:02 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 06:06:50 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 06:02:10 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 05:55:16 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 18:04:24 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 10:31:33 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 07:16:43 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 07:10:15 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 07:08:02 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 07:01:36 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 06:22:55 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 06:17:17 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 06:11:16 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 05:59:38 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 05:48:26 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 15:49:39 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 07:10:42 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 07:07:23 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 07:07:19 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 06:40:38 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 06:31:18 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 06:21:31 -0600 Rating Details
2025-02-17 05:59:01 -0600 Rating Details