Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-09-09 11:10:52 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: C35B23FB3D752E7AF6D9B62457FFB141DD3798E7A63C55650E349214883D3B27
Participant Details

Original Note:

Aunque el titular no es correcto en sí mismo, es importante señalar que la condena no es sólo por negar el acceso a la vivienda. La sentencia indica que se trata de 2 años por coacciones e impedir el acceso a la vivienda, y otros 2 por el hurto de las pertenencias. https://www.elmundo.es/espana/2023/09/08/64fb54c0e4d4d8155d8b45cf.html

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1700367058788139250
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - C35B23FB3D752E7AF6D9B62457FFB141DD3798E7A63C55650E349214883D3B27
  • createdAtMillis - 1694257852216
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • 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 - 1700367058788139250C35B23FB3D752E7AF6D9B62457FFB141DD3798E7A63C55650E349214883D3B27