Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-12-07 02:30:25 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 466F69D325256B25A2AFC546CDB220F95B0DA4C1F7C1B98E687F0283A2ED3C43
Participant Details

Original Note:

This post presents a subjective opinion as if it were a factual statement. The claim is inherently speculative, as it asserts a scenario that cannot be proven or disproven, making it an example of populist rhetoric rather than evidence-based reasoning. https://academichelp.net/humanities/philosophy/opinion-vs-fact.html

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1865017104807703033
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 466F69D325256B25A2AFC546CDB220F95B0DA4C1F7C1B98E687F0283A2ED3C43
  • createdAtMillis - 1733538625036
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 1865017104807703033466F69D325256B25A2AFC546CDB220F95B0DA4C1F7C1B98E687F0283A2ED3C43