Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-11-02 22:02:14 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 454A9FCCA003A5D4E87FDC4E1101E49AB6C6C897093EFB68FFF2B7ABC02FC7EA
Participant Details

Original Note:

1. NNN: Opinion. 2. It's egregious that someone would cite a 5th Circuit opinion that was overturned by the Supreme Court. Because, as SCOTUS ruled, the plaintiffs lacked standing, CA5 lacked jurisdiction (authority) to rule on the case.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1852831805650702725
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 454A9FCCA003A5D4E87FDC4E1101E49AB6C6C897093EFB68FFF2B7ABC02FC7EA
  • createdAtMillis - 1730584934669
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1852831805650702725454A9FCCA003A5D4E87FDC4E1101E49AB6C6C897093EFB68FFF2B7ABC02FC7EA