Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-07-03 15:03:27 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 792A7C2D34867F37F57A977D38D770A91C9BE4C01316F52FBD5C1304F1756FD2
Participant Details

Original Note:

The claim that the Supreme court relied on a fraudulent story in reaching their decision is untrue. The ruling and its reasoning make no mention of the hoax inquiry for service that has recently been publicized. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/600/21-476/

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1675704704335241216
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 792A7C2D34867F37F57A977D38D770A91C9BE4C01316F52FBD5C1304F1756FD2
  • createdAtMillis - 1688396607644
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1675704704335241216792A7C2D34867F37F57A977D38D770A91C9BE4C01316F52FBD5C1304F1756FD2