Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-09 15:55:22 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 53CA0DC7607139C565405E74178F7DAE6C3D29443FF7FC43361D61DC7B8BC6BC
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 - 53CA0DC7607139C565405E74178F7DAE6C3D29443FF7FC43361D61DC7B8BC6BC
  • createdAtMillis - 1723218922721
  • 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 - 182193760826965218153CA0DC7607139C565405E74178F7DAE6C3D29443FF7FC43361D61DC7B8BC6BC