Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-07-02 22:52:13 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: B9D3B4BE326EEEED6A9BBEC4268628BEC855DF17357DA2634C27CEE1030E3B29
Participant Details

Original Note:

The case was based on whether or not a business owner, based on her personal beliefs, could refuse service to a gay couple. SCOTUS ruled she could. The President is expressing his opinion/position on that ruling. 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 - 1675163415571238914
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - B9D3B4BE326EEEED6A9BBEC4268628BEC855DF17357DA2634C27CEE1030E3B29
  • createdAtMillis - 1688338333563
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 1
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 1
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1675163415571238914B9D3B4BE326EEEED6A9BBEC4268628BEC855DF17357DA2634C27CEE1030E3B29