Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2022-06-25 02:16:26 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 4BBB3E29E1B79964376B61EC891CBF7BA260DEC19BCE05E736D1E07AB830765F
Participant Details

Original Note:

The tweet correctly describes Thomas's call to reconsider the listed cases, as shown on pg. 3 of his concurrence (pg 119 of the below-linked PDF) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1540391291388928002
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 4BBB3E29E1B79964376B61EC891CBF7BA260DEC19BCE05E736D1E07AB830765F
  • createdAtMillis - 1656123386718
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 1
  • 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 - 0
  • ratingsId - 15403912913889280024BBB3E29E1B79964376B61EC891CBF7BA260DEC19BCE05E736D1E07AB830765F