Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-10-11 03:17:16 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: DBA1E1C6EC2DCC5613AD7A311408B590898EDFFD7F83CD510AB14D343EB6523C
Participant Details

Original Note:

発言者は、裁判員精度であれば市民の素朴な疑問で有罪判決にできたはずであり、また再審請求のハードルがより高くなってしまうという懸念があるため、科学的な証拠に頼らざるを得なかったことが残念だと言っています。 当該の発言はこちらの記者会見の43分ごろから確認できます https://www.youtube.com/live/3qatSDXiRJU?si=LkowW88tPNm2jtWb&t=2584

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1843983625697817042
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - DBA1E1C6EC2DCC5613AD7A311408B590898EDFFD7F83CD510AB14D343EB6523C
  • createdAtMillis - 1728616636691
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - NOT_HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 1
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 1843983625697817042DBA1E1C6EC2DCC5613AD7A311408B590898EDFFD7F83CD510AB14D343EB6523C