Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2025-02-28 03:18:59 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 1A4C088488C103E58F67F65D1C04EB397E63B97024F0E4FBC660F7EDFA81DBBD
Participant Details

Original Note:

The notes miss the point that even if the Times is legally allowed to publish this, it is still effectively "outing" (aka publicly highlighting) the identifies for 45 people, which obviously can have repercussions (eg personal safety). Post never said the behavior was illegal.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1895183335632392447
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 1A4C088488C103E58F67F65D1C04EB397E63B97024F0E4FBC660F7EDFA81DBBD
  • createdAtMillis - 1740712739104
  • 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 - 18951833356323924471A4C088488C103E58F67F65D1C04EB397E63B97024F0E4FBC660F7EDFA81DBBD