Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-09 21:30:16 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 4136597476086AC842484D6C5E624894F1B2C39BC9D4B82A8F95CF3842AEDDDB
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 - 4136597476086AC842484D6C5E624894F1B2C39BC9D4B82A8F95CF3842AEDDDB
  • createdAtMillis - 1723239016115
  • 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 - 18219376082696521814136597476086AC842484D6C5E624894F1B2C39BC9D4B82A8F95CF3842AEDDDB