Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-08-25 08:07:16 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: F16F5DF3FB583B950BD96856847ABCBE13977F42FABE323D5EA94530D52DF92C
Participant Details

Original Note:

Even if the above note were supported by its source (it's not) it's debunking an argument the post isn't making: there's no evidence 'refuting' the 'social contagion' theory because you can't prove a negative. The post says there is no evidence supporting it, which is true.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1694817576071700754
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - F16F5DF3FB583B950BD96856847ABCBE13977F42FABE323D5EA94530D52DF92C
  • createdAtMillis - 1692950836582
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1694817576071700754F16F5DF3FB583B950BD96856847ABCBE13977F42FABE323D5EA94530D52DF92C