Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-10 06:21:31 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 77F3621FF8FA173FA4ACD668DF010C276EAE695AC375074FD5F7766FA71A337C
Participant Details

Original Note:

This disputes part of the post that indeed seems inaccurate. But an important point of the post (74% max regulatory level) is true by your own cited source. It did, but was a California, rather than Federal limit. A superior note would add context, not dispute entirely. https://t.co/7CrWGESnqr

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1777911892964433924
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 77F3621FF8FA173FA4ACD668DF010C276EAE695AC375074FD5F7766FA71A337C
  • createdAtMillis - 1712730091481
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 177791189296443392477F3621FF8FA173FA4ACD668DF010C276EAE695AC375074FD5F7766FA71A337C