Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2025-07-03 15:39:35 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: EEC99B2A32C213ADBE7AAE07F2D4F1DC5E22798F7CB09AF82555004F8B3C3103
Participant Details

Original Note:

No hay evidencia pública de malicia o fraude. La decisión puede reflejar una interpretación legal de personal indirecto, pese a la acusación del SAT bajo el Artículo 69-B. Sin documentos que prueben engaño, el fraude no está verificado. https://www.jornada.com.mx/noticia/2025/07/02/politica/ampara-scjn-a-coisa-consultores-industriales-contra-resolucion-del-sat

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1940774780698866052
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - EEC99B2A32C213ADBE7AAE07F2D4F1DC5E22798F7CB09AF82555004F8B3C3103
  • createdAtMillis - 1751557175684
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 1
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 1940774780698866052EEC99B2A32C213ADBE7AAE07F2D4F1DC5E22798F7CB09AF82555004F8B3C3103