Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-07-01 03:13:41 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: BD8F32680BCE92BBBF812B9BFE39E5853F59572EA4594FEACBC2CAF646583F2D
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 - BD8F32680BCE92BBBF812B9BFE39E5853F59572EA4594FEACBC2CAF646583F2D
  • createdAtMillis - 1688181221020
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 1
  • 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 - 1674963491256430593BD8F32680BCE92BBBF812B9BFE39E5853F59572EA4594FEACBC2CAF646583F2D