Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-04-29 14:19:09 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: B66A540ED080B1DF888733A05A0310E6AC479C3256944F6E491C539348E57F38
Participant Details

Original Note:

DOJ argues discrimination on the basis of “medical necessity” to which there is no consensus, and complicated by comorbidity factors. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1581636/download “Currently, there is no universally sanctioned definition of “medical necessity”, but in clinical practice for gender affirming care” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8861822/#bib13

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1652227261213360128
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - B66A540ED080B1DF888733A05A0310E6AC479C3256944F6E491C539348E57F38
  • createdAtMillis - 1682777949633
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1652227261213360128B66A540ED080B1DF888733A05A0310E6AC479C3256944F6E491C539348E57F38