A24com Public
abc What it does well
🚨 VIOLENCIA EN LOS BOSQUES DE PALERMO: CICLISTAS ATACARON A MUJERES TRANS
🚨 VIOLENCIA EN LOS BOSQUES DE PALERMO: CICLISTAS ATACARON A MUJERES TRANS
Post analysis
🚨 VIOLENCIA EN LOS BOSQUES DE PALERMO: CICLISTAS ATACARON A MUJERES TRANS
How is it written?
100out of 100
Very good writing
The article uses respectful language. The text is short: take the result as guidance.
- No expressions to change
- 1 thing it does well
In the cross-cutting issues
- Crímenes de odio contra personas LGBTTTIQANB+ Bad news Cuenta un hecho de violencia. National
Turing reads it apart from the grade: the grade measures how it is written; this shows what counts in each topic. See all issues.
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
- A24com · YouTube
- Analyzed
- November 12, 2026
- State
- Online
The text
Where we found it
Estos son los párrafos donde encontramos algo, sin reproducir la publicación completa. Los demás subrayados son detalles de redacción; el número lleva a su explicación en el análisis. Toca o pasa el mouse sobre una marca para ver por qué la señalamos.
Así se ve en YouTube
La muestra YouTube 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.
100out of 100
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.
Year unknown: we rate it with today’s language.
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.
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
1 strength
Inclusive language
Not applicable
How we arrived at 100 out of 100
- Every article starts with100
- Gender and rights perspective+2
- Rating (between 0 and 100, with rounding and caps by category)100
What it does well
- Uses “trans woman”, “trans man” or “trans person”
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
The article is about the work of a congress, but we did not find in itor in its context any person from the directory or a bill from the Observatory. If you know which bill it is about, choose it below.
Topic: Reconocimiento de la identidad de género · Crímenes de odio y transfeminicidios
To understand the context, the AI also read:
- La nota completa del mismo hecho: Cómo fue el ataque a las trabajadoras sexuales trans en los Bosques de Palermo (Agencia Presentes) · also has its analysis
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-9P27-Q6PV
Valid and verifiable Sealed on November 12, 2026, 00:22:35 (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 12, 2026, 00:22:35 (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 (in progress) We check it from time to time to know if it gets deleted.
GHOSTARCHIVE · ghostarchive.org
In line for Ghostarchive
Turing keeps it in Ghostarchive, a public and independent archive. It goes one at a time, so as not to saturate it, and what has sayings goes first; the link appears here as soon as it is saved. Meanwhile, the copy is already valid with your fingerprint and time stamps.
SHA-256 fingerprint of the copy
fd65315c72d2e1c1a3a6ccd80554212517e2952b57da238cb744e7b523d55148
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
- A24com · YouTube
- Last analyzed
- November 12, 2026
- Turing
- 2.8 (the current one)
- State
- Online
- Place of the events
- Fuera de México
It is foreign press: we keep it for the statistics on LGBTTTIQANB+ people, but it is not a Memoria y Resistencia case.
Saved versions
- 100Version 1 · November 12, 2026 · 11 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.