Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-04-06 20:15:59 UTC - SOMEWHAT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: CA6C9E12B9B24B7873E4822545F6B6B957FD62930AA2B259F06F7B8DE9B887E3
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 - CA6C9E12B9B24B7873E4822545F6B6B957FD62930AA2B259F06F7B8DE9B887E3
  • createdAtMillis - 1680812159781
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - SOMEWHAT_HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1643984152109383683CA6C9E12B9B24B7873E4822545F6B6B957FD62930AA2B259F06F7B8DE9B887E3