Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-11-03 21:47:01 UTC - SOMEWHAT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 648E277F282F500B65F044E6E796B0A79F61BFACFEB0CBCCA7BEBB771688A805
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 - 648E277F282F500B65F044E6E796B0A79F61BFACFEB0CBCCA7BEBB771688A805
  • createdAtMillis - 1730670421657
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - SOMEWHAT_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 - 0
  • ratingsId - 1852831805650702725648E277F282F500B65F044E6E796B0A79F61BFACFEB0CBCCA7BEBB771688A805