Fact check: Who owns or runs factually

1. Summary of the results

Based on the provided analyses, there is limited direct information about who owns or runs "Factually." The search results appear to have captured various unrelated sources discussing corporate ownership, facility management, and news source reliability rather than the specific entity in question.

The most relevant finding comes from source ^[1], which mentions that a website is owned and operated by Informa TechTarget, described as part of a global network that informs technology buyers and sellers. However, this appears to reference a different website focused on facility management trends rather than "Factually" specifically.

Source ^[2] indicates that one website is owned by Google LLC, though this also does not appear to directly relate to "Factually" ^[2]. The remaining sources discuss general corporate governance principles ^{[3] [4] [5]}, facility management content ^[6], and lists of unbiased news sources ^{[7] [8] [9]} without providing ownership information for "Factually."

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal a significant gap in available information about "Factually's" ownership structure. Several important contexts are missing:

• No clear identification of which specific "Factually" entity is being referenced - whether it's a news organization, fact-checking service, or other type of platform
• Absence of corporate registration data, founding information, or official ownership disclosures
• No information about funding sources, which would be particularly relevant for fact-checking organizations that may receive support from foundations, media companies, or other entities with potential conflicts of interest
• Missing details about editorial control and operational management, which can differ significantly from legal ownership

The sources instead focus on general corporate ownership principles ^{[3] [4] [5]} and unrelated media entities ^{[7] [8] [9]}, suggesting the search may not have successfully identified the specific organization in question.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation or bias - it's a straightforward inquiry about ownership. However, the lack of specific results suggests potential issues with the search methodology or the ambiguity of the term "Factually."

The analyses reveal that multiple entities could potentially use similar names, as evidenced by the various unrelated websites and organizations captured in the search results ^{[1] [2] [6]}. This highlights the importance of precise identification when researching media ownership, as different organizations with similar names may have vastly different ownership structures and potential conflicts of interest.

Without clear identification of the specific "Factually" entity in question, any definitive claims about its ownership would be unsupported by the available evidence.