Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-06-23 21:16:37 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: C41644120DC530D3EF99D40D0E6A8B6C5537AAEF2BF317110886A4F9C5410264
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 - C41644120DC530D3EF99D40D0E6A8B6C5537AAEF2BF317110886A4F9C5410264
  • createdAtMillis - 1719177397805
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1804936765398253667C41644120DC530D3EF99D40D0E6A8B6C5537AAEF2BF317110886A4F9C5410264