Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-04-20 18:12:57 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 4918023830591B8042ED345AC87A9550FAAB85B49B631184BE1135376952222E
Participant Details

Original Note:

There are two claims here. First, yes, this is the same rule used in the Hunter Biden situation. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/09/15/twitter-acted-lawfully-in-restricting-nypost-hunter-biden-article-fec.html It doesn't matter if the two situations are in any way comparable other than that; it is the same rule. The second claim is sarcastic/hyperbolic. It's not actually a 1A issue.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1649016062430642177
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 4918023830591B8042ED345AC87A9550FAAB85B49B631184BE1135376952222E
  • createdAtMillis - 1682014377114
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 16490160624306421774918023830591B8042ED345AC87A9550FAAB85B49B631184BE1135376952222E