Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-01-15 01:11:23 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 4E9DB16E51EFFE220DB5852E091049FF42E27B0D7CA41B24D79CFB61862706E2
Participant Details

Original Note:

While the opinion mostly concerns sovereign immunity and doesn't resolve the whole case, it does say: "FDA is not a physician"; thus, on the "merits," it was "plausibl[e]" that the FDA's advice was beyond its authority. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9424279/apter-v-dept-of-health-human-svc/

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1698407004824621410
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 4E9DB16E51EFFE220DB5852E091049FF42E27B0D7CA41B24D79CFB61862706E2
  • createdAtMillis - 1705281083907
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 1
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 16984070048246214104E9DB16E51EFFE220DB5852E091049FF42E27B0D7CA41B24D79CFB61862706E2