Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-11-04 09:35:16 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 8D72FEAE2FED6C9A938339B9E09B5576A4E08E14F577C857CA7BDD2EA613C5A3
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 - 8D72FEAE2FED6C9A938339B9E09B5576A4E08E14F577C857CA7BDD2EA613C5A3
  • createdAtMillis - 1730712916960
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 18528318056507027258D72FEAE2FED6C9A938339B9E09B5576A4E08E14F577C857CA7BDD2EA613C5A3