Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-07 22:50:23 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 1FA6DAB129E45484D4F552026CB52A06E80710961EFC96DB4D51E74E5D56E0EE
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 - 1FA6DAB129E45484D4F552026CB52A06E80710961EFC96DB4D51E74E5D56E0EE
  • createdAtMillis - 1723071023320
  • 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 - 18211599039745722751FA6DAB129E45484D4F552026CB52A06E80710961EFC96DB4D51E74E5D56E0EE