What's the truth?

Is abortion murder? Is climate change real?

These questions don't have simple answers. Yet we're constantly pressured to treat complex issues as if they do.

Our Naive Beginning

When we started Groundery, we were a bit naive. We thought fact-checking could be simple: just flag a claim as "True" or "False". The promise of quick, definitive answers was tempting.

But we quickly learned that truth isn't absolute. The world isn't black and white. On many issues, you'll find mountains of evidence pointing one way, and credible arguments pointing the other.

The Problem with Binary Thinking

The challenge isn't just about conflicting evidence. It's about who gets to decide what's true. When we act as the authority that stamps claims as right or wrong, we're making editorial decisions that shape public discourse.

This approach fails because it oversimplifies complex issues. It also creates a dangerous dynamic where people either accept or reject our judgment, rather than engaging with the underlying information.

A Better Approach

That realization changed our focus entirely. Instead of acting as the authority, we redefined our role.

Now, we don't stamp claims. We focus on making it really easy and fast for teams to get the data, sources, and context behind what speakers share. This way, they can see what's out there and decide for themselves.

When most credible sources suggest that a statement is inaccurate, we'll raise a "potentially inaccurate" flag. But it will always come with sources, so teams can verify, understand the context, and make their own informed judgment.

The Result

This approach respects the complexity of truth while still providing valuable guidance. Teams get the information they need to make informed decisions, without being told what to think.

Truth isn't about having the right answer. It's about having the right process for finding answers.