Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-09-30 10:40:12 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: AC82B00854DD4589B0164B0B2317C42269DFEC0C70563A60732FEDFA9BA9B3E5
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 - AC82B00854DD4589B0164B0B2317C42269DFEC0C70563A60732FEDFA9BA9B3E5
  • createdAtMillis - 1727692812888
  • 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 - 1840625930462454253AC82B00854DD4589B0164B0B2317C42269DFEC0C70563A60732FEDFA9BA9B3E5