Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-04-12 21:06:03 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: F1DC75E695F3B8B5EA0FD3E8D6739B02D1EF9A2B5F13C9DF1BC78BBE1B1B955E
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 - F1DC75E695F3B8B5EA0FD3E8D6739B02D1EF9A2B5F13C9DF1BC78BBE1B1B955E
  • createdAtMillis - 1681333563198
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • 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 - 1643984152109383683F1DC75E695F3B8B5EA0FD3E8D6739B02D1EF9A2B5F13C9DF1BC78BBE1B1B955E