How is it written?
Very good writing
The article uses respectful language. The text is short: take the result as guidance.
- No expressions to change
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.
- Account
- @LillyTellez · X
- Published
- November 25, 2025
- Analyzed
- November 11, 2026
- State
- Online
Así se ve en X
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
How Turing arrived at 100
What deducts from and adds to the rating, whom the post listens to, what is worth changing and what it does well.
Very good
- Respectful
The article uses respectful language. 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.
- Google Gemini: no need
- OpenAI GPT-OSS in Groq: no need
- Claude from Anthropic: no need
What takes points off
The bar grows with the weight of each problem in the rating. Empty means no flags.
What adds points
What the article does well. It offsets part of what takes points off, never all of it.
Who speaks
Who appears in the post
The public officials, bills and other voices we found, and what Turing did with what they say.
Legislative observatory
Since this article talks about of a legislator, we automatically recorded it in the Legislative Observatory. Here is the result; you can check it whenever you want.
-
See their record
Senaduría de la República · PAN
Lilly Téllez Against Negative connotations
What the article says (pending decision):“Esto está mal. Aunque esté de moda y sea aplaudido. A pesar de que señalarlo es "políticamente incorrecto", hay que hacer lo realmente correcto y decirlo: Esto está mal: los bebés no son objetos para satisfacer…”
Pending decision: it did not pass all the automatic verification checks and will be decided by a third AI review as soon as an AI has quota (almost always within minutes). Meanwhile it is not published on their record nor does it count in their evaluation; the team can correct it.
- From their official account
- Backed up and certified CC-WR2C-YGZS
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 post existed exactly as Turing read it, even if it is later changed or deleted.
Record of existence on the internet
Reference number CC-WR2C-YGZS
Valid and verifiable Sealed on November 11, 2026, 06:15:35 (Central Mexico time)
Scan to verify
- 1. Copy and digital fingerprint (done) We saved what Turing read (text, account, date and images) and took its SHA-256 fingerprint.
- 2. RFC 3161 timestamp (done) An independent third party (FreeTSA) signed the fingerprint on November 11, 2026, 06:15:35 (Central Mexico time).
- 3. Anchored in Bitcoin (done) The fingerprint is in the OpenTimestamps calendars; it will be in a Bitcoin block within a few hours.
- 4. Copy to Ghostarchive (in progress) In line for Ghostarchive.
- 5. Monitoring (done) It was still online on November 11, 2026. We check it from time to time.
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.
55831339205b907e0834b67b1552619745aca374d6eede1f76601b0c4b5e5675
Turing read it directly from the public link, with no human involvement.
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'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
Sobre la publicación
Data
- Account
- @LillyTellez · X
- Published
- November 25, 2025
- Last analyzed
- November 11, 2026
- Turing
- 2.8 (the current one)
- State
- Online
Saved versions
- 100Version 1 · November 11, 2026 · 49 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 reviewKeep exploring
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.