How does Factually (factually.co) disclose its editorial policies and AI usage compared with The Factual and Factually Health?
Executive summary
Factually (factually.co) publicly frames itself as an AI-driven, nonpartisan research tool that flags the risks of automated conclusions and uses site disclaimers and donation-based funding disclosures to communicate editorial stance [1], while Factually Health markets an AI-powered B2B health information service that repeatedly cautions AI outputs can contain mistakes and are not a substitute for professional advice [2] [3]; The Factual appears in academic efficacy studies as a platform that pairs algorithmic credibility scores with visible sourcing and alternate viewpoints, but the literature stresses that such AI fact‑checking tools are most reliable when transparently tied to independent human fact‑checkers [4] [5].
1. How each organization describes its editorial model and funding
Factually’s public description emphasizes independence and a small-team origin, stating it is run by a single developer without corporate backing and supported through voluntary donations rather than advertisers or institutional sponsors, a disclosure that underpins its editorial positioning as nonpartisan [1]. Factually Health presents itself as a commercial AI platform for hospitals, clinics and other health organizations and markets proprietary technology and integrations as part of a paid product offering, language that frames editorial control around product deployment rather than public-facing journalistic standards [2] [3]. The Factual, as represented in comparative studies, is treated more like an editorialized credibility engine—its outputs in research are described alongside methodological notes about how it assigns credibility grades and sources [4] [5].
2. How each discloses AI use and limits of automation
Factually explicitly acknowledges the risk that “conclusions are generated entirely by AI” and reportedly places disclaimers on every fact check to warn users of potential errors from automated reasoning, which is an explicit admission of the limits of generative systems in its workflow [1]. Factually Health likewise flags AI fallibility on its public materials and Crunchbase profile, warning that “AI Content may contain mistakes and is not legal, financial or investment advice,” language aimed at customers integrating the tech into patient-facing products [3]. The Factual’s presence in efficacy research shows systems that combine algorithmic determinations with source displays and alternate viewpoints; academic reviewers note that AI fact‑checking performs best when it transparently references independent human fact‑checkers, implying that the platform’s disclosure of sourcing is central to its trust claims [4] [5].
3. Transparency in sourcing and "alternate viewpoints"
Factually’s methodology reportedly involves extracting statements with AI, searching the web, and summarizing with linked citations—an approach the platform says is designed to give context without telling readers what to think, a disclosure that frames sourcing as the primary corrective to automation [1]. Factually Health’s materials emphasize delivering an “Factual Web of Health Information” and conversational agents that pull evidence-based content for organizations, but available snippets focus on product features rather than public, granular sourcing policies for each answer [2] [3]. The Factual, as studied, often publishes credibility grades alongside the sourcing and has been noted in research to present “alternate viewpoints” (sometimes with detectable political leanings), which suggests a deliberate editorial choice to surface countervailing sources even if their selection shapes context [5] [4].
4. Hidden agendas, commercial incentives and editorial implications
Factually’s donation-funded, single-developer model argues for editorial independence but also concentrates control and places accuracy risk largely on algorithmic outputs—an arrangement the platform mitigates through warnings and sourcing but that depends on users’ literacies to interpret [1]. Factually Health’s marketing language promising “market superiority” and enterprise integrations reveals a commercial agenda: the product’s primary duty is to paying customers, and its public disclosures focus on product capability and the caveat that AI can err, rather than on independent editorial governance or peer review [3]. The Factual’s inclusion in efficacy studies that praise AI-assisted tools is tempered by research conclusions that stress human oversight and transparent ties to independent fact-checkers as necessary safeguards—an implicit caution that algorithmic credibility scores are not self-sufficient [4] [5].
5. Limits of the available reporting and what remains unclear
Available sources document high-level disclosures—donation funding and per‑check AI disclaimers for Factually [1], product caveats for Factually Health [2] [3], and academic descriptions of The Factual’s sourcing and grading [4] [5]—but none of the provided material gives full, line‑by‑line editorial policies, internal review protocols, or the exact operational role humans play in final outputs; those specifics are not present in the cited reporting and therefore cannot be asserted here [2] [3] [1] [4] [5].