Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-09-30 09:12:49 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 0EE3DDE10B619F954C8E0F43805A37291BB0D59A8ED21071DC142ACB992BA0C8
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN, if you actually read the document you can see the judge clearly state the frame is not why they were sentenced, the risk to the painting itself was. even making the embarrassing argument that "neither of you could be sure that the screen would actually protect the painting"

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1840625930462454253
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 0EE3DDE10B619F954C8E0F43805A37291BB0D59A8ED21071DC142ACB992BA0C8
  • createdAtMillis - 1727687569042
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • 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 - 18406259304624542530EE3DDE10B619F954C8E0F43805A37291BB0D59A8ED21071DC142ACB992BA0C8