Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2025-02-27 19:27:21 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: CF7D27B8F2319E1AFBA8AA73BDAE5B28AB172660A3D536290E91B3A28E356A89
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 - CF7D27B8F2319E1AFBA8AA73BDAE5B28AB172660A3D536290E91B3A28E356A89
  • createdAtMillis - 1740684441332
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1895183335632392447CF7D27B8F2319E1AFBA8AA73BDAE5B28AB172660A3D536290E91B3A28E356A89