Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2025-02-28 02:03:41 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 67476E420F2954D52B3F6CDDA4517882621C1F07F4688061E0F8317BCE8DA0FA
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 - 67476E420F2954D52B3F6CDDA4517882621C1F07F4688061E0F8317BCE8DA0FA
  • createdAtMillis - 1740708221729
  • 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 - 189518333563239244767476E420F2954D52B3F6CDDA4517882621C1F07F4688061E0F8317BCE8DA0FA