Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-06-05 16:34:51 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 049E9E249CF132BD220934A2301413303C9F83D5CC0D861A6488BB5A903CCA42
Participant Details

Original Note:

Suggested note is incorrect. The Supreme Court is not *legally bound* by any code of ethics--passage of a law would be new. Just because they say they voluntarily adhere to that (despite ample reporting to the contrary) does not make it true. No note necessary, not misleading. https://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislative_work/publications/washingtonletter/feb-23-wl/scotus-ethics-0223wl/

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1653820034752430081
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 049E9E249CF132BD220934A2301413303C9F83D5CC0D861A6488BB5A903CCA42
  • createdAtMillis - 1685982891977
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1653820034752430081049E9E249CF132BD220934A2301413303C9F83D5CC0D861A6488BB5A903CCA42