Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-04-20 13:21:44 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: DB49184391568D08569BC7E3535B7C1EF324C779A0CBB5625BFBE4EDD4C26DAD
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 - DB49184391568D08569BC7E3535B7C1EF324C779A0CBB5625BFBE4EDD4C26DAD
  • createdAtMillis - 1681996904638
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 1
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1649016062430642177DB49184391568D08569BC7E3535B7C1EF324C779A0CBB5625BFBE4EDD4C26DAD