Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-06-01 00:29:57 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 3B42F11DAF25EE9FCC8B04C84903158CB22B1D4783A65DE6E937C9F7DBC54ED1
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 - 3B42F11DAF25EE9FCC8B04C84903158CB22B1D4783A65DE6E937C9F7DBC54ED1
  • createdAtMillis - 1717201797423
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 17966919562878079393B42F11DAF25EE9FCC8B04C84903158CB22B1D4783A65DE6E937C9F7DBC54ED1