Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-06-30 16:29:31 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: B65E6D540B6EF683DF969A320E058B3632C298B57B1EC3E87EB4FCAC148B2706
Participant Details

Original Note:

The Court's decision was based on the principle that 1A protects artists from being forced to create speech that they disagree with. The Court reasoned that CADA's requirement forced the company to express a message that it did not believe in. https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:d99276fe-92c4-3f05-9f85-2139746797cf

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1674809356510978050
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - B65E6D540B6EF683DF969A320E058B3632C298B57B1EC3E87EB4FCAC148B2706
  • createdAtMillis - 1688142571760
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1674809356510978050B65E6D540B6EF683DF969A320E058B3632C298B57B1EC3E87EB4FCAC148B2706