Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-09 16:06:54 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: C4DDF9BC2702BFE1460C3642EF3E271461427B469029C509712D9C1FA9F04495
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 - C4DDF9BC2702BFE1460C3642EF3E271461427B469029C509712D9C1FA9F04495
  • createdAtMillis - 1723219614421
  • 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 - 1821937608269652181C4DDF9BC2702BFE1460C3642EF3E271461427B469029C509712D9C1FA9F04495