Https://factually.co/
Executive summary
Factually.co is a recently created site and Chrome extension claiming to be a one‑click fact‑checking tool; third‑party trust analyzers give it low to medium‑low credibility scores and flag red flags including a short WHOIS history and limited user base (Scam Detector medium‑low trust rank; ScamDoc trust score 25%; Chrome‑stats shows ~54 users) [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention independent journalistic audits, regulatory registration, or large‑scale user reviews beyond these aggregator sites [1] [2] [3].
1. New product, small footprint — what the data show
Factually.co appears to be a new entrant: WHOIS data cited by Scam Detector show registration in December 2024 and an SSL certificate valid through early 2026, while a related Chrome extension listing reports a creation date in July 2025 and about 54 users [1] [3]. ScamDoc’s first analysis date is September 6, 2025, and assigns a low trust score (25%), indicating limited online footprint and scarce attestations from independent reviewers [2]. These technical facts point to a site with short operational history and small adoption so far [1] [2] [3].
2. Third‑party trust assessments: cautious, not definitive
Two separate trust evaluators flag concerns. Scam Detector gave factually.co a “medium‑low trusting rank” and lists multiple red flags compiled from 53 factors — language that signals caution rather than definitive fraud [1]. ScamDoc shows a “Poor Trust Score: 25%,” a quantitative metric derived by algorithmic checks of technical and reputational signals [2]. Both services are independent aggregators that base conclusions on detectable signals (WHOIS dates, SSL, traffic, reviews) rather than deep investigative audits; they recommend caution but do not prove illicit activity [1] [2].
3. Chrome extension listing: function and risk profile
Chrome‑stats documents a Factually browser extension titled “One‑Click Fact Checking,” listing minimal permissions (storage, identity) and a small install base, but it also flags “High Injects scripts into web pages” as a potential risk because such behaviour can alter or extract site contents [3]. The listing shows a 5.00 rating from a single reviewer and an author email partially redacted — signals of very limited public feedback that should make potential users pause before installing [3].
4. What the site claims — and what sources extracted
Scam Detector’s attempted extraction of site content summarizes Factually as “a personal fact‑checking companion” offering searches for trending fact‑checks and a blog, and notes the site tries to pull from both mainstream and niche outlets [1] [3]. Those are platform claims aggregated by reviewers, not independent verification that the tool consistently delivers accurate fact‑checks or that its sourcing methodology meets newsroom standards [1] [3].
5. Where reporting is silent — important gaps to note
Available sources do not mention any independent editorial oversight, transparent author credentials, or external audits of the fact‑checking methodology; they also do not report sizable user reviews or mainstream press coverage that would corroborate reliability [1] [2] [3]. Scam Detector and ScamDoc focus on technical trust signals rather than evaluating the accuracy of fact checks themselves; no source here demonstrates the tool’s factual reliability in practice [1] [2].
6. Competing interpretations and how to weigh them
One view (in the aggregator reports) is that limited history, sparse user feedback, and script‑injection permissions justify “caution” because risk to privacy or content integrity exists [1] [3]. An alternative — not strongly represented in these sources — would argue new tools often start small and can be legitimate; however, that scenario requires evidence such as clear editorial policies, verifiable sourcing, or trusted endorsements, none of which appear in the cited material [1] [2] [3].
7. Practical guidance for readers
Treat Factually.co as an unproven tool: don’t install the extension or supply sensitive data without confirming provenance; cross‑check any claims it surfaces against established fact‑checkers (AP, Reuters, PolitiFact) because third‑party evaluators here only measure trust signals, not factual accuracy [1] [2] [3]. If you need a definitive safety determination, seek independent technical audits or mainstream reviews — available sources do not mention either [1] [2] [3].
Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the aggregator reports and the extension metadata provided in the available sources; there is no direct interview with the site owners or independent content audits cited in these materials [1] [2] [3].