Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-15 11:36:38 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 71C86A1FC35C9F6CE4E96C00598C07EB4706E40EC5145DD0B94A580D563F8904
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN - Added context must be neutral and factual. Views on history and someone's profession are not neutral. Implying that the law and the scope given to it by the judges in this trial are self-evident or that they have no bearing on free speech is not factual but an opinion.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1790538459083424224
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 71C86A1FC35C9F6CE4E96C00598C07EB4706E40EC5145DD0B94A580D563F8904
  • createdAtMillis - 1715772998569
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 179053845908342422471C86A1FC35C9F6CE4E96C00598C07EB4706E40EC5145DD0B94A580D563F8904