Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-06-30 19:15:16 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: DF4023719A4F61A13507717EA0A81ACC42559C12C361C015E90D3CC26C995FFC
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 - DF4023719A4F61A13507717EA0A81ACC42559C12C361C015E90D3CC26C995FFC
  • createdAtMillis - 1688152516829
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 1674858406019235841DF4023719A4F61A13507717EA0A81ACC42559C12C361C015E90D3CC26C995FFC