Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-06-23 23:25:51 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 9B500ABA2A3003E632CC60C3CF98A3C8432D057B3465C1C94152DDFFF844D504
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN All three sources in the current top note have been heavily criticized as flawed, misleading or politically motivated. The Cass review has been widely criticized for disregarding studies with results that support gender affirming care & not including a subject matter expert.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1804936765398253667
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 9B500ABA2A3003E632CC60C3CF98A3C8432D057B3465C1C94152DDFFF844D504
  • createdAtMillis - 1719185151680
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 1
  • 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 - 18049367653982536679B500ABA2A3003E632CC60C3CF98A3C8432D057B3465C1C94152DDFFF844D504