Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-09 15:58:07 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: CD44923CBF3F16146816C231269C53A39F94C9D38736B59F76B11E7F779C856F
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 - CD44923CBF3F16146816C231269C53A39F94C9D38736B59F76B11E7F779C856F
  • createdAtMillis - 1723219087072
  • 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 - 0
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 1
  • 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 - 1821937608269652181CD44923CBF3F16146816C231269C53A39F94C9D38736B59F76B11E7F779C856F