Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-31 00:05:03 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: EF1EA3F1D0D4CCC91E74060AF9C741C8A3D98597D2B98168F3759B01604A095D
Participant Details

Original Note:

No Note Needed. This is not a "logical fallacy"; it is a valid syllogism where the premises follow from the conclusion. The existing note makes a case that the second premise is false, but that is not the same thing, it's an argument that should be done as a reply to the post

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1796275814939480329
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - EF1EA3F1D0D4CCC91E74060AF9C741C8A3D98597D2B98168F3759B01604A095D
  • createdAtMillis - 1717113903111
  • 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 - 1796275814939480329EF1EA3F1D0D4CCC91E74060AF9C741C8A3D98597D2B98168F3759B01604A095D