Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-04-06 17:01:45 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 2B0720E54A5BBE1558B2EA32B89C708E48A9DFC57698B74D03533E61BD8BA5D8
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 - 2B0720E54A5BBE1558B2EA32B89C708E48A9DFC57698B74D03533E61BD8BA5D8
  • createdAtMillis - 1680800505525
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • 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 - 0
  • ratingsId - 16439841521093836832B0720E54A5BBE1558B2EA32B89C708E48A9DFC57698B74D03533E61BD8BA5D8