Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-04-30 17:28:36 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 14F0E5CF80A5070F1B64912978A89DEC4C179F42ABDC3EEA39E5C89C2CD09FAA
Participant Details

Original Note:

The original tweet is simple and limited in scope; the SCOTUS ethics rules were not broken. Community Notes disputing this will need to provide evidence that the ethics rules were in fact broken, or that the original tweet was misleading. https://help.twitter.com/en/resources/addressing-misleading-info

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1651736198711484418
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 14F0E5CF80A5070F1B64912978A89DEC4C179F42ABDC3EEA39E5C89C2CD09FAA
  • createdAtMillis - 1682875716414
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 165173619871148441814F0E5CF80A5070F1B64912978A89DEC4C179F42ABDC3EEA39E5C89C2CD09FAA