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 good is factually.co
Executive summary
Available reporting on factually.co is sparse and mixed: Scam Detector flagged the site with a medium‑low trust rating and noted red flags based on 53 factors, while ScamDoc shows a low trust score (25%) in its profile [1] [2]. There is no detailed, independent journalism about the company’s operations in the provided sources; the assessments are security/trust-scanning sites rather than financial- or editorial-audits [1] [2].
1. What the scanners report: technical signals and trust scores
Automated trust-evaluation sites give factually.co a cautious verdict. Scam Detector assigned a “medium‑low” trusting rank after compiling 53 indicators and highlighted controversial connections and other red flags tied to the domain [1]. ScamDoc’s public profile lists a poor trust score of 25%, which its algorithm produces from dozens of technical criteria reflecting the level of confidence one should have when dealing with a digital correspondent [2]. Both sites are designed to surface technical and reputational risk signals rather than certify business legitimacy in a regulatory sense [1] [2].
2. What the reports say about site details and provenance
Scam Detector’s snapshot lists concrete technical metadata: a valid SSL certificate (issuer: Let’s Encrypt, valid through 2026‑01‑08) and WHOIS registration dates (registered 2024‑12‑11, updated 2024‑12‑16, renewal 2025‑12‑11), but also notes the registrant details are privacy‑redacted — a common practice that can raise interpretive questions for trust scorers [1]. ScamDoc’s analysis similarly relies on automated, algorithmic scoring rather than human investigative reporting [1] [2].
3. What factually.co claims to be (per the scanners)
According to the extracted content summarized by Scam Detector, factually.co presents itself as “a personal fact‑checking companion” offering a searchable index of trending fact‑checks and a related blog [1]. That description suggests a consumer‑facing verification tool, but the provided sources do not independently verify the site’s editorial practices, sourcing standards, or organizational leadership [1].
4. Missing information and limits of the current reporting
Important verification items are not covered in these sources: there is no independent audit of factually.co’s editorial standards, peer review practices, funding or ownership beyond redacted WHOIS data, nor regulatory or journalistic vetting in the documents provided [1] [2]. The scanners focus on technical and reputational heuristics; they do not equate to a full legitimacy check or a legal determination. Available sources do not mention vetted user reviews, journalism about the company’s history, or third‑party confirmations of its fact‑checks [1] [2].
5. How to interpret “medium‑low” and “25%” trust ratings
Both types of services produce proxy measures of risk. Scam Detector’s “medium‑low” rank and ScamDoc’s 25% score signal caution — they’re warnings to scrutinize the site further before trusting or sharing content — but they are not binary proofs of fraud [1] [2]. These platforms weigh factors such as domain age, privacy redaction, site design, and other heuristics; different algorithms and thresholds can produce different risk labels for the same site [1] [2].
6. Practical next steps for a reader wanting to evaluate factually.co
Based on what the scanners show, a prudent approach is to verify the site’s claims independently: check for named authors and their credentials on specific fact‑checks, look for transparent sourcing and links back to primary evidence, attempt to contact the organization and note response quality, and cross‑check their articles against established fact‑checking organizations [1] [2]. If you plan to input personal data or pay for services, the red flags (privacy‑redacted WHOIS, low automated trust score) warrant extra caution [1] [2].
7. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas in the sources
Scam Detector and ScamDoc serve the explicit agenda of risk detection; their business model and algorithms are built to flag potential problems and protect consumers, which can lead to conservative (risk‑averse) outcomes and false positives on new or privacy‑conscious ventures [1] [2]. Neither source performs independent editorial fact‑checking of the site’s content, and both rely on heuristics that favor older, fully transparent registrants [1] [2].
8. Bottom line
Current, publicly accessible technical and reputation scans advise caution: Scam Detector’s medium‑low trusting rank and ScamDoc’s 25% score are both warning signs to verify factually.co more thoroughly before relying on it [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention detailed journalistic vetting, user‑experience reports, or official regulatory findings that could confirm or disprove those scans [1] [2].