Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-09 17:33:09 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 36F3D627CB0981E724AA514C3186CCC2C12A9494E97B9812C22523199F7FB9D5
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN The reader-added context here is wrong. Walz specifically says there’s no constitutional protection for “HATE SPEECH,” which is legal in the US. Even amid discussion of banned election speech, it’s incorrect to say there’s “no constitutional protection” for misinformation.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1821937608269652181
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 36F3D627CB0981E724AA514C3186CCC2C12A9494E97B9812C22523199F7FB9D5
  • createdAtMillis - 1723224789195
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • 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 - 182193760826965218136F3D627CB0981E724AA514C3186CCC2C12A9494E97B9812C22523199F7FB9D5