Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-11-27 16:02:42 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 34A5B8C54A975A881002F3F7BD8331297AC72564257C14BB63CAA80F2C9C0889
Participant Details

Original Note:

“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is what the 14th amendment hinges on. Even SCOTUS has disagreed amongst itself on how to interpret that. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark-1898

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1861503333543891379
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 34A5B8C54A975A881002F3F7BD8331297AC72564257C14BB63CAA80F2C9C0889
  • createdAtMillis - 1732723362315
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 186150333354389137934A5B8C54A975A881002F3F7BD8331297AC72564257C14BB63CAA80F2C9C0889