Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-03-04 18:26:24 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 1DF2F3B10E61DAD143E7357A176ECE65DE6B116B283EE24CCAF61E40D125A406
Participant Details

Original Note:

The court has not proved itself "illegitimate" by ruling the way they did on Trump v. Anderson. They clearly cited a constitutional basis for something they believe violates its articles. This is, in fact, the court's job. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1764717786234798568
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 1DF2F3B10E61DAD143E7357A176ECE65DE6B116B283EE24CCAF61E40D125A406
  • createdAtMillis - 1709576784161
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 17647177862347985681DF2F3B10E61DAD143E7357A176ECE65DE6B116B283EE24CCAF61E40D125A406