Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-11-03 12:15:33 UTC - SOMEWHAT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 88959BAA9B680B2FAA46E722662E0B477E932B6AD587017E34A1AB47BB969217
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 - 88959BAA9B680B2FAA46E722662E0B477E932B6AD587017E34A1AB47BB969217
  • createdAtMillis - 1730636133812
  • 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 - 1
  • 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 - 0
  • ratingsId - 185283180565070272588959BAA9B680B2FAA46E722662E0B477E932B6AD587017E34A1AB47BB969217