Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-03-10 16:49:18 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 015EF949CC561DD1C4D9D280A412D22A8B38286592F6F7EDB1F2996F2613D350
Participant Details

Original Note:

This tweet merely proposes an ethical argument against defacing two flags representing two different ideas, not making misleading claims about the legality of flag burning or destruction on public property.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1634210841993125896
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 015EF949CC561DD1C4D9D280A412D22A8B38286592F6F7EDB1F2996F2613D350
  • createdAtMillis - 1678466958831
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - NOT_HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 1
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1634210841993125896015EF949CC561DD1C4D9D280A412D22A8B38286592F6F7EDB1F2996F2613D350