Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-06-15 19:53:06 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: FE3AE6EBB4C326BDB253F4C81D0A05BF01C0054F7F1F5607923C2C9D81313B38
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 - FE3AE6EBB4C326BDB253F4C81D0A05BF01C0054F7F1F5607923C2C9D81313B38
  • createdAtMillis - 1718481186206
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 1
  • 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 - 1801748048718049595FE3AE6EBB4C326BDB253F4C81D0A05BF01C0054F7F1F5607923C2C9D81313B38