The whole site
How is it written?
The article is respectful overall, with some details to improve. It does not name the person’s identity or the context of bias-motivated violence. The text is short: take the result as guidance.
Is this analysis correct?
Your answer trains Turing and improves the rating.
To answer, you have to Sign-in: so your corrections remain in your follow-up.
The text
Estos son los párrafos donde encontramos algo, sin reproducir la publicación completa. La franja ámbar con señala lo que va contra nuestros derechos. The other underlines are wording details; the number takes you to its explanation in the analysis. Tap or hover over a mark to see why we flagged it.
Lilly Téllez @LillyTellez
abc Goes against our rights abc Hostile speech abc Generic masculine «…» Direct quote
Goes against our rights: La perversa ideología de género1 (see entry 1 in the analysis) es política oficial de la SEP.
Quieren sexualizar a los niños y envenenarlos con propaganda de supuestas "infancias trans".
La muestra X tal como está hoy, con sus videos e imágenes. Si la borran o la cambian, aquí queda lo que Turing leyó y su copia certificada.
The rating
What deducts from and adds to the rating, whom the post listens to, what is worth changing and what it does well.
Good
The article is respectful overall, with some details to improve. It does not name the person’s identity or the context of bias-motivated violence. The text is short: take the result as guidance.
News articleReports facts. We check that it tells them with respect and without morbidity.
Text by 2025 Date of publication
Analyzed with Turing v2.8 · What changed
AI was not involved in this article: it was rated only by Turing’s rules.
The bar grows with the weight of each problem in the rating. Empty means no flags.
What the article does well. It offsets part of what takes points off, never all of it.
Publicación de @LillyTellez · La perversa ideología de género es política oficial de la SEP. · Quieren sexualizar a los niños y envenenarlos con…See it in the text An expression used to discredit the rights of LGBTTTIQANB+ people. Speak of a “gender perspective” or of “rights”. It says
What it claims
Al analizar la publicación, Turing revisa las cifras, leyes y casos que afirma y lo que dicen las organizaciones, personas legisladoras y autoridades que cita, y los compara con el Memorial, el Observatorio Legislativo y verificaciones publicadas.
The article
«pic.twitter.com/eRQdoOwS6w»
We don’t have enough dataIt isn’t a figure, a law, a statement or a case we can compare with our records.
See the evidenceReport VR-2026-8VAGTC · PDF · Turing compara con lo que tenemos documentado (un conteo mínimo). No decimos «falso»: si no coincide, te enseñamos la evidencia. See a mistake?
The proof
Proof that this post existed exactly as Turing read it, even if it is later changed or deleted.
Record of existence on the internet
Reference number CC-5Z6Y-MFDW
Valid and verifiable Sealed on November 9, 2026, 11:17:17 (Central Mexico time)
Scan to verify
GHOSTARCHIVE · ghostarchive.org
In line for Ghostarchive
Turing la guarda en Ghostarchive, un archivo público e independiente que sí acepta X. Va de una en una, para no saturarlo, y lo que tiene dichos va primero; el enlace aparece aquí en cuanto quede guardada. Mientras, la copia ya es válida con su huella digital y sus sellos de tiempo.
e97a251eaa91dad166f1a206d6968bc9cde623b84465d96555733ff667c742bf
Turing read it directly from the public link, with no human involvement.
It is a technical proof of integrity and date: it shows that this exact content existed at that moment and was not modified afterwards. In Mexico, information in electronic media is recognized as evidence, and its weight depends on the reliability of the method used to create and keep it, on its remaining intact and on its being available for later consultation (Commercial Code, art. 1298-A; Federal Code of Civil Procedure, art. 210-A; National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, art. 348).
That's why every copy uses open standards that anyone can check without trusting us: SHA-256 fingerprint, third-party RFC 3161 timestamp, OpenTimestamps on Bitcoin, and Ghostarchive's standalone copy.
It is not a notarial certification of facts or a NOM-151 preservation certificate. If you need it for a lawsuit, the same fingerprint can be backed by them. Write to us with the folio.
Record
Every time someone analyzes the article, we read it again. If the outlet changed it, we save a new version and compare.
If you work at the outlet or wrote the article and think the analysis has an error, request a review: we give you a reference number and reply in writing within 10 business days.
Request a reviewThe analysis is automatic: it can be wrong with irony, with quotes the article criticizes or with very short texts. To protect the people in the cases, their legal name does not appear on this page. How we rate.