Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-01-15 00:36:43 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 879045870943B236B1E2F70D97E8E740CCAE115FB82027AE2E42668D361A8356
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 - 879045870943B236B1E2F70D97E8E740CCAE115FB82027AE2E42668D361A8356
  • createdAtMillis - 1705279003514
  • 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 - 1
  • 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 - 1698407004824621410879045870943B236B1E2F70D97E8E740CCAE115FB82027AE2E42668D361A8356