Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-04-06 15:04:11 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: E11E7A912B24C114F44D5FA5D493F77E841F9632239ECB0B4E74DA4AB6DEBA4E
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 - E11E7A912B24C114F44D5FA5D493F77E841F9632239ECB0B4E74DA4AB6DEBA4E
  • createdAtMillis - 1680793451842
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1643984152109383683E11E7A912B24C114F44D5FA5D493F77E841F9632239ECB0B4E74DA4AB6DEBA4E