In the UK, we can rely on fact checkers from the BBC, who are impartial and would never be caught doctoring videos of presidents of ally countries [2]. The UK government would never send 100 current/past members of their party to interfere in a foreign election [3].
> What Factually does is different. It takes a question typed by a user and hands it to a Large Language Model, or LLM, to generate some query strings. It performs up to three Internet search queries, then feeds the top nine web pages it found to a pair of LLMs ...
So it selects its sources according to their SEO-gaming proficiency?
In the US, free speech protections are very selective (depending on what you planning to say). The rest of the Western world does not even have the laws protecting free speech. No need to worry.
Regardless of the legal protections of free speech, the general notion worldwide is that corporations are allowed to create and post whatever nonsense they feel like with utter impunity. It's one thing for a single person to write the timecube, it's another entirely to promulgate fact-checker robots which completely obscure the real facts with utter bullshit. We could all see this coming from miles away. I see definite need to worry.
It almost seems naive for the author of this article to expect every organization labeling itself as a "fact-checker" to practice thorough journalistic standards, or for them to be unbiased. It seems inevitable that just like opinion/propaganda networks claiming to be "News," the same concept exists for "fact checkers," despite many other fact checking organizations being a lot more legitimate.
While I like how the concept that fact checking has tried to respond to the social media age's flood of inaccuracies and disinformation, encouraging the idea that we should try to more thoroughly verify news stories and sources to make sure they are accurate, in practice I'm not sure if they've been a major net positive.
For the target audience, who is presumably someone who has fallen for some misinformation or propaganda, fact-checking often seems to come across as condescending to that person. "Actually, that thing you believed isn't real, here's some smarty-pants reasons why you were wrong."
Either that, or it's like the community notes system where it's an endless war of clever comebacks.
I don't really have a solution in mind, just these thoughts on the present state of things.
Readit News
Cute [1].
In the UK, we can rely on fact checkers from the BBC, who are impartial and would never be caught doctoring videos of presidents of ally countries [2]. The UK government would never send 100 current/past members of their party to interfere in a foreign election [3].
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20251111010701/https://aphyr.com...
[2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/03/bbc-report-revea...
[3] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/17/labour-sends...
So it selects its sources according to their SEO-gaming proficiency?
Thet want to make sure you do not have any choice and at that point You Will Like It.
Increasingly I think that "free speech" should apply to humans only, not to humans armed with a gas-powered bullshit spewer.
Deleted Comment
While I like how the concept that fact checking has tried to respond to the social media age's flood of inaccuracies and disinformation, encouraging the idea that we should try to more thoroughly verify news stories and sources to make sure they are accurate, in practice I'm not sure if they've been a major net positive.
For the target audience, who is presumably someone who has fallen for some misinformation or propaganda, fact-checking often seems to come across as condescending to that person. "Actually, that thing you believed isn't real, here's some smarty-pants reasons why you were wrong."
Either that, or it's like the community notes system where it's an endless war of clever comebacks.
I don't really have a solution in mind, just these thoughts on the present state of things.