Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-07-06 16:28:43 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: BA557FEFECB74D7256EDC0EC9370903A9704AEEA34BBEE0BA9340056857593AE
Participant Details

Original Note:

This is a decision about compelled speech treating artistic/written endeavors like a website in this case as a First Amendment issue. As such it is on strong ground, but the real problem is the case should never have been heard as it was a hypothetical, no actual customer. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/21-the-requirement-of-a-real-interest.html

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1674963491256430593
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - BA557FEFECB74D7256EDC0EC9370903A9704AEEA34BBEE0BA9340056857593AE
  • createdAtMillis - 1688660923773
  • 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 - 0
  • 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 - 1674963491256430593BA557FEFECB74D7256EDC0EC9370903A9704AEEA34BBEE0BA9340056857593AE