Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-07 16:51:42 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: C28DBC2959FF5A93FCF3E1436079FCBA59BB40DC9A82F40CB34F12F158E21938
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 - C28DBC2959FF5A93FCF3E1436079FCBA59BB40DC9A82F40CB34F12F158E21938
  • createdAtMillis - 1723049502957
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1821159903974572275C28DBC2959FF5A93FCF3E1436079FCBA59BB40DC9A82F40CB34F12F158E21938