Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-07-03 10:32:59 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: AE315E4B81040B11D6923FFE15EE49D18DF1B571F5FDBBB4BD24D222C0C89F6C
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 - AE315E4B81040B11D6923FFE15EE49D18DF1B571F5FDBBB4BD24D222C0C89F6C
  • createdAtMillis - 1688380379828
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 1675704704335241216AE315E4B81040B11D6923FFE15EE49D18DF1B571F5FDBBB4BD24D222C0C89F6C