Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2025-02-28 04:08:21 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 6D87FFE1C2E1B15C23AAD80E6057F1B53FA1DB79F4F2DEC9A41318FEFC46DD65
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 - 6D87FFE1C2E1B15C23AAD80E6057F1B53FA1DB79F4F2DEC9A41318FEFC46DD65
  • createdAtMillis - 1740715701826
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - 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 - 18951833356323924476D87FFE1C2E1B15C23AAD80E6057F1B53FA1DB79F4F2DEC9A41318FEFC46DD65