Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-06-15 12:52:26 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: A9638BB5C3FA34E23D2DF99DA29B0B6DEA7D8C1C35A173311C2A3B5560E554E6
Participant Details

Original Note:

The decision in Cargill v. Garland provides this explanation. Within a longer paragraph is the following: “A bump stock does not alter the basic mechanics of bump firing, and the trigger still must be released and reengaged to fire each additional shot.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976new_0971.pdf

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1801748048718049595
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - A9638BB5C3FA34E23D2DF99DA29B0B6DEA7D8C1C35A173311C2A3B5560E554E6
  • createdAtMillis - 1718455946726
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1801748048718049595A9638BB5C3FA34E23D2DF99DA29B0B6DEA7D8C1C35A173311C2A3B5560E554E6