Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-04-06 15:58:20 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 20D60AFFA358782111F92E4FEE1790AC4D7601AC8B0F60890006A8833634AB44
Participant Details

Original Note:

Currently proposed note is misleading, as it implies the statute is the only applicable ethical standard Thomas seems to have violated. He is also accused of violating traditional judicial ethical standards that are unenforceable at the Supreme Court but extremely important.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1643984152109383683
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 20D60AFFA358782111F92E4FEE1790AC4D7601AC8B0F60890006A8833634AB44
  • createdAtMillis - 1680796700746
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 164398415210938368320D60AFFA358782111F92E4FEE1790AC4D7601AC8B0F60890006A8833634AB44