Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-04-28 03:07:22 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: AE7CCFBCECE566E7C2FA59F1D0BDDA1E9997EF515AB5430A9200C33C07EF5DD2
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 - AE7CCFBCECE566E7C2FA59F1D0BDDA1E9997EF515AB5430A9200C33C07EF5DD2
  • createdAtMillis - 1682651242749
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1651736198711484418AE7CCFBCECE566E7C2FA59F1D0BDDA1E9997EF515AB5430A9200C33C07EF5DD2