Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-11-12 07:03:02 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 15E455A632EFBEB3252F245E6C5B98512A5C2AD872149CE478C4E15162F39634
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN 1. The comment "interesting" doesn't warrant a note, it doesn't even imply agreement. 2. Ad hominem attacks don't convince any serious thinker. 3. J. Sacks never mentions a written agreement. The note pertaining to that is therefore irrelevant.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1856214442628862296
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 15E455A632EFBEB3252F245E6C5B98512A5C2AD872149CE478C4E15162F39634
  • createdAtMillis - 1731394982006
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 185621444262886229615E455A632EFBEB3252F245E6C5B98512A5C2AD872149CE478C4E15162F39634