Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-07 17:10:19 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 1B4DA2510F005C01E66B5B88D38E77A2D6F3ED04E821558904D17A9AC52368AA
Participant Details

Original Note:

The article neglects to mention that the lawsuit is for damages incurred from anticompetitive and possibly antitrust violating behavior on the part of the parties being sued vs simply companies choosing not to advertise on 𝕏. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25033227-x-v-garm

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1821159903974572275
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 1B4DA2510F005C01E66B5B88D38E77A2D6F3ED04E821558904D17A9AC52368AA
  • createdAtMillis - 1723050619073
  • 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 - 1
  • ratingsId - 18211599039745722751B4DA2510F005C01E66B5B88D38E77A2D6F3ED04E821558904D17A9AC52368AA