Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-11-27 08:37:53 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 419945586117575549BA8124E38BC79A84F0A02E7B649CAF5962A25B60F4C4C3
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 - 419945586117575549BA8124E38BC79A84F0A02E7B649CAF5962A25B60F4C4C3
  • createdAtMillis - 1732696673946
  • 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 - 1861503333543891379419945586117575549BA8124E38BC79A84F0A02E7B649CAF5962A25B60F4C4C3