My personal view on automated fact-checking is actually quite different than on what I consider to be real fact-checking (ie.: the product of professional human labour), for much the same reason that I wouldn't buy a newspaper written by a bot, but that I see a lot of value in articles written by humans.

I don't know how well this will age, but for now, I think any company claiming to be able to automate fact-checking should be met with a high degree of skepticism.

Just for context, what I imagine in my head when I think of a "fact check" is something like this, basically a specialized or somewhat standardized / formulaic form of journalism:

- https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/england-banned-fox-news/

- https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/18/joe-biden/...

- https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/05/donald-tru...

I deliberately picked a couple of less obvious fact-checks than "is the earth round", because I wanted to highlight how even in politics, on questions where there is high potential for bias, there are cut and dry things which can be fact-checked, or at the very least 'contextualized'.

I'm sure none of this is perfect, but I am not super optimistic that automated content would be of this level of quality.