Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-05-20 12:14:57 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: E2BBF5BC5C12D6D06EE1D03AEC106E5470B43798247420ED933F32CB17A9E5BD
Participant Details

Original Note:

The Court found that: 1. The TED Talk was defamatory of Mr Banks. 2. There was a significant change of circumstances, such that the public interest defence ceased to apply. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Banks-v-Cadwalladr-130622-Judgment.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiirLWRs4H_AhVkSkEAHVB1AZ4QFnoECAgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0vrdsN7y-FF_kdgFtbnZeA

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1659541978105761798
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - E2BBF5BC5C12D6D06EE1D03AEC106E5470B43798247420ED933F32CB17A9E5BD
  • createdAtMillis - 1684584897824
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1659541978105761798E2BBF5BC5C12D6D06EE1D03AEC106E5470B43798247420ED933F32CB17A9E5BD