Birdwatch Archive - Rating Details

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-12-06 19:25:15 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: AF82F4B36A2695C3F2A2843AFCEC468FF20D52D0765C9A1B6FB9FEF30855FCFE
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 - AF82F4B36A2695C3F2A2843AFCEC468FF20D52D0765C9A1B6FB9FEF30855FCFE
createdAtMillis - 1733513115550
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 - 1
notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 1
notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
notHelpfulOutdated - 0
notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 1
notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 1
notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
ratingsId - 1865017104807703033AF82F4B36A2695C3F2A2843AFCEC468FF20D52D0765C9A1B6FB9FEF30855FCFE