Birdwatch Archive - Rating Details

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-03-29 22:35:02 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 79BB719AC948968496D55B46C373EDFA5E809D045F4B4455E23244199A829667
Participant Details

Original Note:

Nel provvedimento del giudice non c'è alcun riferimento ai tweet dell'avvocato ricorrente. Il procedimento cautelare riguardava unicamente i post diffamatori di Andrea Sparaciari, che sono stati rimossi in corso di giudizio. https://twitter.com/iurimariaprado/status/1773415733327769626?t=aWdsQqWJax_IEt9KGKFwyg&s=19

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

noteId - 1773690575067160896
participantId -
raterParticipantId - 79BB719AC948968496D55B46C373EDFA5E809D045F4B4455E23244199A829667
createdAtMillis - 1711751702574
version - 2
agree - 0
disagree - 0
helpful - 0
notHelpful - 0
helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
helpfulOther - 0
helpfulInformative - 0
helpfulClear - 0
helpfulEmpathetic - 0
helpfulGoodSources - 0
helpfulUniqueContext - 0
helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
helpfulImportantContext - 1
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 - 177369057506716089679BB719AC948968496D55B46C373EDFA5E809D045F4B4455E23244199A829667