Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-06-30 21:49:46 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: B633F1D871762D43D3F09BF6DCBBA1B2BE483A6B2D1DA9BC14BF92E7851C0B4F
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 - B633F1D871762D43D3F09BF6DCBBA1B2BE483A6B2D1DA9BC14BF92E7851C0B4F
  • createdAtMillis - 1688161786641
  • 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 - 0
  • 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 - 1674858406019235841B633F1D871762D43D3F09BF6DCBBA1B2BE483A6B2D1DA9BC14BF92E7851C0B4F