Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-10 01:46:28 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 17745C73FC68EBEA004C370F3D61FE3846BE6FC7782A26FB3B0C253B0A2DB5AF
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN. OP is stating his opinion that the conduct as conceded by Jack Smith’s office in your own link, amounts to evidence tampering. He could still have this opinion even if a court found Smith not guilty of this conduct, and would just be disagreeing with the court’s ruling.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1788714401308266507
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 17745C73FC68EBEA004C370F3D61FE3846BE6FC7782A26FB3B0C253B0A2DB5AF
  • createdAtMillis - 1715305588345
  • 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 - 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 - 178871440130826650717745C73FC68EBEA004C370F3D61FE3846BE6FC7782A26FB3B0C253B0A2DB5AF