Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-16 02:29:27 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: B50121D1E09CDE635D8181A67B2E90C80BC77E4437EA48CF8F2BBC3EE2CAF509
Participant Details

Original Note:

This post could imply that the Cass Report's evidentiary basis for its conclusions includes fabricated individuals. This is not the case. Rather, this post refers to whether or not the illustrations of individuals throughout the the report are real persons. https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1780016798881943930
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - B50121D1E09CDE635D8181A67B2E90C80BC77E4437EA48CF8F2BBC3EE2CAF509
  • createdAtMillis - 1713234567069
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1780016798881943930B50121D1E09CDE635D8181A67B2E90C80BC77E4437EA48CF8F2BBC3EE2CAF509