Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-07 16:00:22 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 8792CA66EFF41679C7719C0E1735E9D00FFE0917D23FDDEAF93BC43809FF3FF3
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 - 8792CA66EFF41679C7719C0E1735E9D00FFE0917D23FDDEAF93BC43809FF3FF3
  • createdAtMillis - 1723046422450
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - 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 - 0
  • ratingsId - 18211599039745722758792CA66EFF41679C7719C0E1735E9D00FFE0917D23FDDEAF93BC43809FF3FF3