Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-04-28 19:16:03 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 422E401FC665E95E26999477B8B7E20AAB6A6F5BA717FEEDCA8498D63BDD18D5
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 - 422E401FC665E95E26999477B8B7E20AAB6A6F5BA717FEEDCA8498D63BDD18D5
  • createdAtMillis - 1682709363290
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1651736198711484418422E401FC665E95E26999477B8B7E20AAB6A6F5BA717FEEDCA8498D63BDD18D5