Dan Nottingham

The facts are wrong.

The context is wrong.

And it's different from fact checking.

You could put in, and this is where misinformation gets so tricky sometimes.

You can list several facts, but then you can wrap it in a context that distorts it.

So you can say all these facts are correct, but the context in which it's being used is misleading.

And so we use all of that to create what we call credibility score rather than just fact checking.

So it's things together.

And we have a it's kind of a proprietary algorithm to determine the score itself.

Sure.

It ranks it.

But if it's unsure, if it says, yeah, this is a little iffy, that's going to be somewhere in the middle of the scale between a four and a six.

Things over six tend to feel like, okay, this is more credible than not.

So the facts and the context have to both be correct for it to come out with a high credibility score.

Okay, so let's say, here's a fact.

I walk outside and I see the horizon spreading out before me and the sky kind of meets the horizon way off in the distance.

Looks flat.

I look overhead, looks like there's a dome.

I have two facts that everyone would agree on.

The plane ahead of me looks flat and the sky looks like a dome.