Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-04-28 12:39:56 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 4E7AD027A19FFF10DF9E52B84B2AB28942F1122895276F239D6812E5E589910E
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 - 4E7AD027A19FFF10DF9E52B84B2AB28942F1122895276F239D6812E5E589910E
  • createdAtMillis - 1682685596829
  • 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 - 16517361987114844184E7AD027A19FFF10DF9E52B84B2AB28942F1122895276F239D6812E5E589910E