Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-06-01 13:35:40 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 12440F70709BC2ACDAFB6BDF47C3E1EC36A05E3D2C57F3259D2B065184F992CE
Participant Details

Original Note:

The verdict in the Trump case was not based on any specific case law but rather on the fact the judge had not given correct US constitutional interpretation and instructions

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1796691956287807939
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 12440F70709BC2ACDAFB6BDF47C3E1EC36A05E3D2C57F3259D2B065184F992CE
  • createdAtMillis - 1717248940329
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 179669195628780793912440F70709BC2ACDAFB6BDF47C3E1EC36A05E3D2C57F3259D2B065184F992CE