Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-07-02 16:52:57 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 23B2E05577B00A784F2E24A25A1094979A2BCBBE8F56BCBA600E58391AA485CA
Participant Details

Original Note:

The court ruled and the lawyers argued against compelled speech. This does not permit a company to discriminate. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/21-476.html https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/two-models-of-the-right-to-not-speak/

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1674858406019235841
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 23B2E05577B00A784F2E24A25A1094979A2BCBBE8F56BCBA600E58391AA485CA
  • createdAtMillis - 1688316777714
  • 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 - 167485840601923584123B2E05577B00A784F2E24A25A1094979A2BCBBE8F56BCBA600E58391AA485CA