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.
Is factually.co accurate or trustworthy?
Executive summary
Available reporting on factually.co is limited and mixed: security/technical checks flag concerns (Scam Detector gives a "medium‑low" trust rank and ScamDoc reports a poor 25% score) and a related Chrome extension has small user counts but permissions that could pose risk [1] [2] [3]. Broader investigative or regulatory coverage about the site's editorial accuracy or business practices is not found in the current reporting (available sources do not mention broader independent fact‑checking audits).
1. What the security‑and‑trust scans say — technical red flags
Two site‑analysis services raise caution: Scam Detector gave factually.co a "medium‑low trusting rank" after examining 53 factors including WHOIS and SSL data and concluded "caution is advised" [1]. ScamDoc likewise shows a poor trust score (25%) for Factually.co and describes its scoring as an algorithmic assessment of many technical criteria, signaling low confidence for digital exchanges with the site [2]. These checks focus on site age, registration details and certificates rather than editorial accuracy; they indicate potential operational risk but do not by themselves prove deliberate fraud [1] [2].
2. Product signal — Chrome extension data and permissions
There is a Factually Chrome extension listed with very small adoption (about 54 users) and a single rating; the extension requests permissions including storage and identity and can inject scripts into web pages — a capability that "may alter or extract site contents," which extension‑analysis tooling classed as a high likelihood risk even if impact is labelled low [3]. Small user numbers and script‑injection permission mean users should be cautious about data exposure and browser behavior changes; these are practical, not necessarily conclusive, indicators of trustworthiness [3].
3. What critics and watchdogs explicitly allege (and what they do not)
Scam Detector and ScamDoc raise "controversial" or "red flag" language tied to site connections and technical factors, but their writeups do not present documented examples of misinformation or factual errors in the site’s content — they assess trust by infrastructural and reputational signals rather than article‑level accuracy [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention independent content audits, repeated factual errors, or regulatory action specifically against factually.co (available sources do not mention independent content audits or regulatory rulings).
4. Distinguishing domains and extrapolations — beware of conflation
One search result in the provided set discusses "factually.com" and lists complaints about withdrawals and regulatory gaps typical of online brokers — that appears to be a different domain and a different problem set (finance/brokerage) from factually.co’s stated mission of "personal fact‑checking" [4]. The reviews for factually.com (withdrawal complaints, lack of licensing) cannot be automatically applied to factually.co without further corroboration; current reporting does not connect the two domains (p1_s3; available sources do not mention a link between factually.com and factually.co).
5. What a cautious user should do next
Given technical trust flags and the extension’s permissions, users should: (a) avoid installing the extension until more reviews exist; (b) verify article claims from factually.co against primary sources or established fact‑checkers (AP, Reuters, Snopes, etc.) because available reporting does not document factually.co’s editorial accuracy; and (c) check domain WHOIS and privacy policy details for clarity on ownership and data practices before submitting personal information (p1_s1; [3]; available sources do not mention editorial audits).
6. Competing perspectives and the limits of current evidence
Security scanners emphasize structural risk and small‑sample extension usage; defenders could argue a new or small service is not inherently untrustworthy and that algorithmic trust scores can produce false positives for legitimate startups [1] [2] [3]. However, those favorable possibilities are not documented in the current reporting: there are no independent content‑quality endorsements or regulatory approvals cited for factually.co in the provided sources (available sources do not mention endorsements or regulatory approvals).
7. Bottom line — cautious skepticism warranted
Existing, cited assessments recommend caution: medium‑low trust from Scam Detector, a 25% score on ScamDoc, and a small, potentially risky Chrome extension footprint together justify a cautious approach to factually.co until more independent, content‑focused evaluations appear [1] [2] [3]. If accuracy and data privacy matter to you, cross‑check any claims found there with well‑established fact‑checkers and avoid installing the extension for now [3].