Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-04-28 15:07:32 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: FB7E70E0ABC8CBC465C16AB2BFA26AB91A3F32F69EF158437F561B0EB9F637CE
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 - FB7E70E0ABC8CBC465C16AB2BFA26AB91A3F32F69EF158437F561B0EB9F637CE
  • createdAtMillis - 1682694452559
  • 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 - 1651736198711484418FB7E70E0ABC8CBC465C16AB2BFA26AB91A3F32F69EF158437F561B0EB9F637CE