Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-05-31 23:14:20 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: D4CC30A718414CD5EBE23BF2A8DACC8CC2FA0F8207EEA8D16ABDA7DDB7DA87AC
Participant Details

Original Note:

The ruling for the plaintiff was unanimous, but there was a 5-4 split in opinions. Kavanaugh wrote an opinion, joined by the 3 Liberal justices, concerned that the ruling "would have significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States." https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/25/us/supreme-court-epa-water-pollution.html

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1664046314794135552
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - D4CC30A718414CD5EBE23BF2A8DACC8CC2FA0F8207EEA8D16ABDA7DDB7DA87AC
  • createdAtMillis - 1685574860388
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1664046314794135552D4CC30A718414CD5EBE23BF2A8DACC8CC2FA0F8207EEA8D16ABDA7DDB7DA87AC