Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How does Factually.co verify facts and ensure accuracy?
Executive summary
Factually.co is described in at least one third‑party review as a “personal fact‑checking companion” that lets users search trending fact‑checks and read related blog posts, but the reviewer (Scam Detector) assigns the site a medium‑low trust score and urges caution pending proof of business legitimacy [1]. Available sources do not provide Factually.co’s own documentation of verification methods or an official description of its editorial processes; reporting focuses on site purpose and trust‑score concerns rather than internal fact‑checking workflows [1].
1. What the public record says about Factually.co’s mission
Scam Detector’s profile frames Factually.co as a consumer‑facing fact‑checking tool designed to help users verify claims by searching trending fact‑checks and reading related content; that description suggests the site positions itself as an aid to verification rather than a full‑service, institutionally accredited fact‑checker [1]. Scam Detector repeatedly notes the site’s purpose in plain language and lists features such as searchable fact‑checks and a blog, which implies a lightweight, user‑oriented model rather than a large newsroom operation [1].
2. Trust and legitimacy concerns highlighted by third‑party reviewers
Scam Detector gives Factually.co a “medium‑low trusting rank” and says caution is advised, citing 53 evaluation factors the reviewer uses to flag potential high‑risk activity; it also invites domain owners to supply business documentation (certificate of incorporation, registration, etc.) to challenge the score [1]. That invitation indicates the reviewer did not find—or could not verify—basic corporate records that would normally bolster claims about a service’s verification capacity [1].
3. What the sources do not say about Factually.co’s verification methods
Available sources do not describe Factually.co’s standards, editorial policies, sourcing practices, use of primary documents, review protocols, or whether it follows international fact‑checking norms such as principles from the International Fact‑Checking Network (IFCN) (not found in current reporting) [1]. Because the report focuses on site description and trust scoring rather than internal operations, there is no evidence in the provided material that details how Factually.co verifies claims or what checks editors perform [1].
4. How to interpret a medium‑low trust score in context
A medium‑low trust ranking from a site like Scam Detector typically reflects gaps in verifiable ownership, transparency, or risk signals rather than an explicit finding that content is false; Scam Detector’s methodology asks for business documentation and flags non‑operational or redirected domains as concerns, signaling that missing public records weigh heavily in their assessment [1]. The ranking therefore raises legitimate questions about transparency and accountability even if it stops short of declaring the service fraudulent [1].
5. Broader fact‑checking ecosystem context and why methods matter
Fact‑checking outfits vary from volunteer projects to accredited newsrooms; trusted organizations usually publish clear editorial policies, corrections procedures, and sourcing standards. The European Parliament brief on platform fact‑checking shows institutional attention to who does fact‑checking and how platforms handle third‑party verifiers, underscoring why transparency about methods matters for trust [2]. While that brief does not mention Factually.co specifically, it illustrates why regulators and platforms scrutinize verification workflows and third‑party relationships [2].
6. Practical next steps for users and researchers
If you want to assess Factually.co’s accuracy yourself, ask the site for explicit evidence of its methods (editorial policy, sourcing standards, corrections policy) and for business registration documents that Scam Detector requests; Scam Detector explicitly invites domain owners to provide incorporation or official records to challenge its trust score [1]. Because the provided reporting lacks those method details, readers should treat the site as a tool with limited publicly verified credentials until it publishes clear procedural documentation [1].
7. Bottom line and reporting limitations
Based on available reporting, Factually.co is marketed as a fact‑checking companion but lacks publicly documented, third‑party verified proof of its editorial or business legitimacy in the sources provided; Scam Detector’s medium‑low trust score and call for business documentation are the most concrete findings in the record [1]. Important caveat: the sources supplied do not include any statement from Factually.co itself or independent audits of its verification practices, so claims about specific verification workflows are not found in current reporting [1] [2].