Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-05-04 00:12:58 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 237BFF7D3EF7DD2C414CDD961133DA65B3E843D370AB6288CCEF0D7F99FF3655
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 - 237BFF7D3EF7DD2C414CDD961133DA65B3E843D370AB6288CCEF0D7F99FF3655
  • createdAtMillis - 1683159178573
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 1
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1653820034752430081237BFF7D3EF7DD2C414CDD961133DA65B3E843D370AB6288CCEF0D7F99FF3655