Birdwatch Note
2025-02-24 01:12:44 UTC - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
There is no such Supreme Court case. A search of www.scotusblog.com confirms this.
Written by 9BC78C593AC47263B343CED86206C8156285F7C1B1AAC7931157C7C96355866B
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/1893690814611488780
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 - 1893831393915895876
- noteId - 1893831393915895876
- participantId -
- noteAuthorParticipantId - 9BC78C593AC47263B343CED86206C8156285F7C1B1AAC7931157C7C96355866B Participant Details
- createdAtMillis - 1740359564652
- tweetId - 1893690814611488780
- classification - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
- believable -
- harmful -
- validationDifficulty -
- misleadingOther - 1
- misleadingFactualError - 1
- misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
- misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
- misleadingMissingImportantContext - 0
- misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 0
- misleadingSatire - 0
- notMisleadingOther - 0
- notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 0
- notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
- notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
- notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 0
- trustworthySources - 1
- summary
- There is no such Supreme Court case. A search of www.scotusblog.com confirms this.
Note Ratings
| rated at | rated by | |
| 2025-02-24 11:22:31 -0600 | Rating Details | |
| 2025-02-24 07:37:14 -0600 | Rating Details | |
| 2025-02-23 21:03:18 -0600 | Rating Details |