Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2025-01-18 08:49:20 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 4C243F3677A639930329B767ECF9CC5AC5B2E97D0F22FB0C2850E16A8BD27C04
Participant Details

Original Note:

The post is a personal expression of confusion at the seemingly inferred positive reframing of Pedophilia highlighted in the article title. No CN needed. NYT choices for article titles should be open to public commentary.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1880260543241408755
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 4C243F3677A639930329B767ECF9CC5AC5B2E97D0F22FB0C2850E16A8BD27C04
  • createdAtMillis - 1737190160314
  • 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 - 18802605432414087554C243F3677A639930329B767ECF9CC5AC5B2E97D0F22FB0C2850E16A8BD27C04