Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-03-05 12:01:26 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 538C7263580F9453EC9DDBB43593ECBF8A2F63B12FF2A43D1CE1B3AEBBBD6544
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 - 538C7263580F9453EC9DDBB43593ECBF8A2F63B12FF2A43D1CE1B3AEBBBD6544
  • createdAtMillis - 1709640086257
  • 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 - 1764717786234798568538C7263580F9453EC9DDBB43593ECBF8A2F63B12FF2A43D1CE1B3AEBBBD6544