Full Fact employs artificial intelligence tools to manage the overwhelming amount of content available for fact-checking, identifying an average of 240,437 pieces of potentially checkable content per day. After filtering through this large number, over 99% is deemed irrelevant or unimportant. The organization focuses on claims based on their potential to cause harm, audience reach, and the influence of the source. Despite advancements in technology, fact-checkers face the complexity of uneven political landscapes and the varying significance of the statements made by politicians.
Artificial intelligence tools enabled Full Fact to scan public debates, identifying an average of 240,437 pieces of content daily, suitable for potential fact-checking.
Full Fact eliminated over 99% of identified claims as neither relevant nor important for fact-checking, focusing on those with potential impact.
The selection of claims for fact-checking is influenced by factors like harm potential, audience reach, and the influence of the claim's source.
Fact-checkers face challenges due to the variability in political environments, which complicates the balance of checking claims from different political contexts.
Collection
[
|
...
]