Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2025-02-27 20:00:03 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: F077FFC88A99E8EA4FE4FC0ABFD86E3686286CE7A67D041412F7F833628881B8
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 - F077FFC88A99E8EA4FE4FC0ABFD86E3686286CE7A67D041412F7F833628881B8
  • createdAtMillis - 1740686403462
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1895183335632392447F077FFC88A99E8EA4FE4FC0ABFD86E3686286CE7A67D041412F7F833628881B8