Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-07-01 23:57:34 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: DBA18E8BBA4E1A6EE94E74F168288ED7DFEEAC974728A226CBEEF96C1129F91B
Participant Details

Original Note:

“Because these courts categorically rejected any form of Presidential Immunity, they did not analyze the conduct alleged in the indictment to decide which of it should be categorized as official and which unofficial.” -Page 24 of the ruling https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1807859445961314422
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - DBA18E8BBA4E1A6EE94E74F168288ED7DFEEAC974728A226CBEEF96C1129F91B
  • createdAtMillis - 1719878254691
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 1807859445961314422DBA18E8BBA4E1A6EE94E74F168288ED7DFEEAC974728A226CBEEF96C1129F91B