Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-26 03:19:41 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: ECD12A678444ED305450E5100672945C021E7A6A787ADB4CC763DAB93727327E
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN, the OP's case is weakened by one of the refernces provided where X/Twitter explicetly states "X believes that eSafety’s order was not within the scope of Australian law and we complied with the directive pending a legal challenge." https://x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1781342060668174707 The rest is material for a comment

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1783147496858132888
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - ECD12A678444ED305450E5100672945C021E7A6A787ADB4CC763DAB93727327E
  • createdAtMillis - 1714101581870
  • 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 - 1783147496858132888ECD12A678444ED305450E5100672945C021E7A6A787ADB4CC763DAB93727327E