Skip to content
Turing

Analysis of the article

Critican a María Clemente García Moreno tras indignante tuit contra Israel: “Apología del terrorismo”

Infobae · published on October 10, 2023

How is it written?

Very good writing

The article uses respectful language.

Is this analysis correct?

Your answer trains Turing and improves the rating.

Yes, it's correct No, I want to correct it

To answer, you have to Sign-in: so your corrections remain in your follow-up.

Correct Turing's analysis

Outlet
Infobae
Published
October 10, 2023
Analyzed
November 10, 2026
State
Online
Leer en infobae.com PDF
Share

Share this analysis

X Facebook Threads WhatsApp

The text

Where we found it

Estos son los párrafos donde encontramos algo, sin reproducir la nota 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.

Infobae infobae.com

Critican a María Clemente García Moreno tras indignante tuit contra Israel: “Apología del terrorismo”

By Marlem Suárez ·

abc Goes against our rights abc Generic masculine abc What it does well «…» Direct quote

La diputada federal plurinominal y activist por los derechos de la sexual diversity en México, María Clemente García Moreno, generó polémica en las redes sociales tras publicar un controvertido mensaje en su cuenta de Twitter el día de hoy a las …

… mensaje, la diputada escribió: “¡QUE VIVA PALESTINA LIBRE! MUERTE A LOS INVASORES ASESINOS DE ISRAEL.” El tweet generó una serie de reacciones encontradas, con algunos usuarios mostrando su apoyo a su postura, mientras que otros condenaron su llamado a la violencia. “Ojalá que Twitter (“X”) no vea éste tuit, porque es sumamente …

… García Moreno, quien representa al partido Morena en el Congreso de la Unión, ha sido conocida por su activismo y su compromiso en la lucha por los derechos de la sexual diversity en México. Ocupa un escaño como diputada federal plurinominal para el periodo de 2021 a 2024 en representación de su partido. Esta no es la primera vez que se …

… para acordar el Paquete Económico 2024 de México en septiembre pasado, la legisladora protagonizó un violento altercado a golpes con diputadas del bloque opositor. En esa ocasión, García Moreno lanzó insultos como “perras”, “nacas” y “mugrosas”, además de otros comentarios discriminatorios. Después del altercado en el Congreso, ofreció una conferencia de prensa en la que declaró ser “una perra de AMLO”, haciendo referencia al presidente de México, …

The rating

How Turing arrived at 100

What deducts from and adds to the rating, whom the article listens to, what is worth changing and what it does well.

Very good

  • Respectful

The article uses respectful language.

News articleReports facts. We check that it tells them with respect and without morbidity.

Text by 2023 Date of publication

Analyzed with Turing v2.8 · What changed

Second opinion with AI from Claude de Anthropic

What takes points off

The bar grows with the weight of each problem in the rating. Empty means no flags.

Derogatory terms No flags
Name and gender No flags
Blames the victim No flags
Sensationalism No flags
Hostile speech No flags
Imprecise terms No flags

What adds points

What the article does well. It offsets part of what takes points off, never all of it.

Gender and rights perspective 2 strengths
Inclusive language 0%
How we arrived at 100 out of 100
  1. Every article starts with100
  2. Gender and rights perspective+4
  3. Rating (between 0 and 100, with rounding and caps by category)100

Turing related it to what the site already knows

  • Infobae · Observatorio de Medios · 56 notas · promedio 95 de 100

What it does well

  • Talks about sexual diversity
  • Gives a voice to collectives and activists

What it claims

What the article says, fact-checked

In analyzing the memo, Turing reviews the figures, laws, and cases he claims and what the organizations, legislators, and authorities he cites say, and compares them to Memorial, Legislative Observatory, and published verifications.

Turing is comparing what the note states with the Memorial, the Legislative Observatory and published verifications...

Who speaks

Who appears in the article

The public officials, bills and other voices we found, and what Turing did with what they say.

Legislative observatory

The article is about the work of a congress, but we did not find in it any person from the directory or a bill from the Observatory. If you know which bill it is about, choose it below.

What each person said is published on their record only if it passes a verification: the quote is in the article, it is that person, and a second AI review agrees. Whatever does not pass is decided by a third AI review, without waiting for the team, which can correct any position. Report an error

The proof

Certified copy

Proof that this article existed exactly as Turing read it, even if it is later changed or deleted.

Record of existence on the internet

Reference number CC-9RK9-7PQ6

Valid and verifiable Sealed on November 10, 2026, 01:36:49 (Central Mexico time)

Código QR del certificado CC-9RK9-7PQ6 Scan to verify
  1. 1. Copy and digital fingerprint We saved what Turing read and took its SHA-256 fingerprint.
  2. 2. RFC 3161 timestamp An independent third party (FreeTSA) signed the fingerprint on November 10, 2026, 01:36:49 (Central Mexico time).
  3. 3. Anchored in Bitcoin The fingerprint is in the OpenTimestamps calendars; it will be in a Bitcoin block within a few hours.
  4. 4. Copy at Internet Archive Saved on November 10, 2026 on servers that are not ours. See the copy
  5. 5. Monitoring We check it from time to time to know if it gets deleted.

INTERNET ARCHIVE · Wayback Machine

Backed up on archive.org

Internet Archive, an independent digital library, saved its own copy on its servers on November 10, 2026, 07:37 (UTC). We check its index to confirm it exists before showing it here.

Why does this make it authentic?
  • It is an independent witness. Internet Archive is a non-profit digital library that has preserved the web since 1996. It has no ties to Memoria y Resistencia or to whoever published the content.
  • The copy is theirs, not ours. Their own system captures it, stores it on their servers and stamps it with their own date and time. Neither we nor the publisher can edit it or change its date.
  • Anyone can verify it. It is at a public web.archive.org address that contains the date. Anyone can open it without asking us and compare it with our copy and its fingerprint.
  • It is a recognized reference. Journalists, researchers and lawyers often cite it to show what a page looked like on a given date.
  • Two witnesses that match. Our timestamp and the Internet Archive copy are made separately. If anyone claimed we altered the copy, the archive.org one would disprove it.

Internet Archive and its logo are trademarks of Internet Archive. We use them only to show where the copy is; this is not an endorsement by them.

SHA-256 fingerprint of the copy aa8e3fce14a68e103a57ccdeff3257aaee0f2a312a35c5bdd122bb25334390c0

Turing read it directly from the public link, with no human involvement.

See the certificate Download as PDF Check another folio
What is it worth as evidence?

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 is why each copy uses open standards that anyone can verify without trusting us: SHA-256 fingerprint, third-party RFC 3161 timestamp, OpenTimestamps on Bitcoin and the independent Internet Archive 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

About the note

Data

Outlet
Infobae
Byline
Marlem Suárez
Published
October 10, 2023
Last analyzed
November 10, 2026
Turing
2.8 (the current one)
State
Online

Saved versions

  • 100Version 1 · November 10, 2026 · 332 words

Every time someone analyzes the article, we read it again. If the outlet changed it, we save a new version and compare.

Are you from the outlet?

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 review

Keep exploring

Preparing your PDF… We are putting together the analysis with the underlined text and the QR code.

Made by and for the community

This tool is free because someone donated before you

We receive no government funding. Your donation helps us keep reviewing how the press names LGBTTTIQANB+ people and keep the memory of each case alive.

Donate $100 once

Secure payment with Stripe through Nodo Cívico, the organization behind Memoria y Resistencia.

See all options

The 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.