Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-11-02 22:23:43 UTC - SOMEWHAT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 660C4BEC4EECADB90EE8EAB931DE4EF10AE6E9F69002E21344089A958789F257
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 - 660C4BEC4EECADB90EE8EAB931DE4EF10AE6E9F69002E21344089A958789F257
  • createdAtMillis - 1730586223880
  • 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 - 1852831805650702725660C4BEC4EECADB90EE8EAB931DE4EF10AE6E9F69002E21344089A958789F257