Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-07 14:05:26 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: C3C38D9BB77ADD6827C974A65C93800C6FF4CBFF92E77A2181514556D499C5E6
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 - C3C38D9BB77ADD6827C974A65C93800C6FF4CBFF92E77A2181514556D499C5E6
  • createdAtMillis - 1723039526005
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 1821159903974572275C3C38D9BB77ADD6827C974A65C93800C6FF4CBFF92E77A2181514556D499C5E6