Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-07-01 15:05:51 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 60D2AB8839D3EF47DD1C377DD8246EBA76ECB17DD65F13F29A2276F700AA2348
Participant Details

Original Note:

Tweet expresses a factually correct claim. Suggested note says the same thing in a different way. The case was based on whether or not a business owner, based on her religious beliefs, could refuse service to a gay couple. SCOTUS ruled she could. Note not needed. https://www.cpr.org/2023/06/30/supreme-court-303-creative-case-lgbtq/ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1675157239961882624
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 60D2AB8839D3EF47DD1C377DD8246EBA76ECB17DD65F13F29A2276F700AA2348
  • createdAtMillis - 1688223951778
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 167515723996188262460D2AB8839D3EF47DD1C377DD8246EBA76ECB17DD65F13F29A2276F700AA2348