Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-10-25 05:26:26 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: B50121D1E09CDE635D8181A67B2E90C80BC77E4437EA48CF8F2BBC3EE2CAF509
Participant Details

Original Note:

The opinion expressed by the post is a humorous exaggeration of the actual strategies espoused by advocates of jury nullification. The resource the twitter user cites in the second tweet expressly advises against potential jurors perjuring themselves https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/called-for-jury-duty.html

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1849625072354423006
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - B50121D1E09CDE635D8181A67B2E90C80BC77E4437EA48CF8F2BBC3EE2CAF509
  • createdAtMillis - 1729833986510
  • 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 - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • 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 - 1849625072354423006B50121D1E09CDE635D8181A67B2E90C80BC77E4437EA48CF8F2BBC3EE2CAF509