Logically

Organization: Logically
Applicant: Al Baker
Assessor: Raymond Joseph

Background

This is the second time I have assessed Logically, and I am impressed how its fact-checking unit has grown, both in dedicated fact-checkers and in the number of fact-checks it does. It is also the only privately funded, for-profit fact-checking organisation that I have assessed.

Logically fact-checking unit is a distinct team set up exclusively for the purposes of fact-checking. It is situated within the editorial division of Logically Ltd, a private company, trading under the name ‘Logically’.

Logically’s website is well-structured and easy-to-navigate, and it has a high level of transparency in its explanations to users of how it operates and how it is funded.

It employs 24 fact-checkers, which is a large number compared to most other organisations I have previously assessed. Users are able to submit fact-checks via the Logically app – available for iPhone and Android devices – and a Chrome browser extension.

Logically uses a combination of AI machine learning algorithms to assist its human fact-checkers in their work. It is also focused on developing technologies, including enterprise and consumer software, “ to provide tools to individual users, media outlets, businesses, and governments to prevent and address problems caused by misinformation.”

As a for-profit entity that does not receive donor funding, it would be useful to observe where it generates revenue, as well as the new avenue of income it is exploring, as they may be of interest to some non-profit fact-checking outfits striving for sustainability.

Assessment Conclusion

I am satisfied that Logically complies with the IFCN’s Code of Principles. As such, I have no hesitation in marking them fully complaint and eligible for continued IFCN membership.

on 09-Aug-2021 (3 months ago)

Raymond Joseph assesses application as Compliant

A short summary in native publishing language

See "background", above

Section 1: Eligibility to be a signatory

To be eligible to be a signatory, applicants must meet these six criteria

  • 1.1 The applicant is a legally registered organization, or a distinct team or unit within a legally registered organization, and details of this are easily found on its website.
  • 1.2 The team, unit or organization is set up exclusively for the purpose of fact-checking.
  • 1.3 The applicant has published an average of at least one fact check a week over the course of the six months prior to the date of application. For applicants from countries with at least 5 or more verified signatories need to have at least a fact check a week over the twelve months of publishing track. Consult to factchecknet@poynter.org for confirmation.
  • 1.4 On average, at least 75% of the applicant’s fact checks focus on claims related to issues that, in the view of the IFCN, relate to or could have an impact on the welfare or well-being of individuals, the general public or society.
  • 1.5 The applicant’s editorial output is not, in the view of the IFCN, controlled by the state, a political party or politician.
  • 1.6 If the organization receives funding from local or foreign state or political sources, it provides a statement on its site setting out to the satisfaction of the IFCN, how it ensures its funders do not influence the findings of its reports.

Criteria 1.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please explain where on your website you set out information about your organization’s legal status and how this complies with criteria. Attach a link to the relevant page of your website.

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago)

TheLogically Ltd. is a private company, trading under the name ‘Logically’. The Logically Fact Checking unit is a distinct team within the Editorial division of Logically set up exclusively for the purposes of fact checking. Please see answer 1.2 for details on how the Fact Checking team is structured and how it relates to the rest of the Editorial division.

The information requested above is found at www.logically.ai/factchecks ; www.logically.ai/about and www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency .

We show the following statement on our website at https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency

“Logically is funded by a combination of Lyric's personal investment in the company (using personal savings and money from family business Eliza Tinsley), by venture capital investment from the Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund, managed by Mercia Asset Management, and investment from XTX Ventures. Lyric Jain remains the only person with significant control of Logically.”

Our ‘Investment’ page (https://www.logically.ai/investment) contains a more detailed statement about how Logically is funded.

Our ‘Transparency’ page (https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency) and ‘About’ page (www.logically.ai/about) contain details of our motivations, structure and purpose as well as statements concerning our editorial independence (see 2.5 for more on this).

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

The Logically fact-checking unit is a distinct team set up exclusively for the purposes of fact-checking-, within the editorial division of Logically Ltd, a private company, trading under the name ‘Logically’. 

Details of how Logically is structured and where the fact-checking unit fits in can be found here: https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency 

It is registered Companies House in the UK as a Private Limited Company https://bit.ly/3lBy0UQ 

Under the heading: "Funding" on the "Transparency" page on its site, Logically explains how it is funded: https://bit.ly/3AvaMUP 

"Logically was founded in 2017 by CEO LyrF4.1ic Jain." It is "funded by a combination of Lyric's personal investment in the company (using personal savings and money from family business Eliza Tinsley), by venture capital investment from the Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund, managed by Mercia Asset Management, and investment from XTX Ventures. Lyric Jain remains the only person with significant control of Logically."

More details about investors can be found here: https://www.logically.ai/investment 


done_all 1.1 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 1.2
Proof you meet criteria
Please answer the following questions – (see notes in Guidelines for Application on how to answer)

 1. When and why was your fact-checking operation started?
 2. How many people work or volunteer in the organization and what are their roles?
 3. What different activities does your organization carry out?
 4. What are the goals of your fact-checking operation over the coming year?

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

1) Logically was founded in July 2017 by CEO Lyric Jain to develop technologies and products to assist in the global effort to combat misinformation.

2) At time of writing, Logically employs 130 staff across three territories (India, UK and Europe). Of these, 43 work in the editorial division, of which 24 are dedicated fact checkers. Besides the Editorial division, Logically has teams working in product development, technology research and development, marketing and communications and administrative and leadership roles.

The Editorial Division of Logically incorporates all operations involving fact checking, journalism, investigations, policy research and other published outputs.

Editorial employs 24 dedicated fact checkers, which includes: 14 researchers who carry out the majority of the research involved in our fact checks, 4 Moderators who are responsible for copy-editing and quality assurance, and 4 supervisors who are responsible for ensuring high editorial standards and manage the day-to-day operations of the fact checking team. Other members of the editorial division, including our reporters, investigators and copy editors, also contribute to our fact checking output. Our supervisors report to our Head of Fact Checking, who in consultation with the Managing Editor deal with any potentially contentious editorial decisions, and address any complaints or necessary corrections. The head of fact checking reports directly to the managing editor. The managing editor is ultimately responsible for editorial policy and standards throughout the editorial division, including the factchecking team.

Logically Editorial currently employs 19 people who are not dedicated fact checkers. They are: the Managing Editor and two project managers; the Head of Investigations and a team of 9 investigative researchers and journalists; the Head of Content and a team of 5 editors and writers.

3) Logically works in a number of areas, all related to combating misinformation, including:

i) Providing a bespoke fact checking service for users of our app and google chrome web extension as well as for B2B clients

ii) Developing technologies including enterprise and consumer software, AI and machine learning algorithms to assist fact checkers in their work, and to provide tools to individual users, media outlets, businesses, and governments to prevent and address problems caused by misinformation.

iii) Publishing journalistic content, educational resources and comment and opinion pieces in our areas of interest and expertise (including news and media literacy, fact checking, information disorders, media criticism and relevant technologies)

iv) Conducting and publishing policy research and investigations in our areas of interest

4) Over the coming year, our goals are:

i) To continue developing a sustainable, responsible and ethical business model which allows for high quality fact checks to be conducted at scale to serve the needs of media institutions, businesses, individuals and the world at large.

ii) To continue to develop technologies and systems to support ourselves, and the wider fact checking community in our work

iii) To partner with non-partisan media, civic and governmental organisations to develop ways to use fact checking to combat the effects of misinformation

iv) To continue to work with, support and critically engage with the community of journalists, NGOs, businesses and civic groups who work in good faith to fight misinformation

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

1) Logically was founded in July 2017 by CEO Lyric Jain "to develop technologies and products to assist in the global effort to combat misinformation."

2) Logically currently employs 30 staff across three territories (India, UK and Europe). 

Its editorial team employs 43 people, of which 24 are dedicated fact-checkers. Besides the Editorial division, Logically has teams working in product development, technology research and development, marketing and communications, and administrative and leadership roles.

The Editorial Division incorporates all operations involving fact-checking, journalism, investigations, policy research, and other published outputs.

The dedicated fact-checking unit includes:

i) a head of fact-checking;

ii) 14 researchers, who do most of the research involved in fact checks,

iii) 4 moderators responsible for copy-editing and quality assurance;

iv) 4 supervisors responsible for ensuring editorial standards and managing the day-to-day operations of the fact-checking team. 

Other members of Logially's editorial division, including reporters, investigators and copy editors, also contribute to Logically's fact-checking output. The supervisors report to the head of fact-checking, who in consultation with the Managing Editor "deal with any potentially contentious editorial decisions, and address any complaints or necessary corrections." 

The head of fact-checking reports directly to the managing editor,  who is ultimately responsible for editorial policy and standards throughout the editorial division, including the fact-checking team.

Logically Editorial currently employs 19 people who are not dedicated fact-checkers. They are the Managing Editor and two project managers; a head of investigations and a team of 9 investigative researchers and journalists; a head of content;  and a team of 5 editors and writers.

3) 3) Logically works in a number of areas, all related to combating misinformation. These include:

i) Providing a bespoke fact-checking service for users of its app and Google Chrome browser  extension, and also servicing  B2B clients

ii) Developing technologies, including enterprise and consumer software, AI and machine learning algorithms to assist fact-checkers in their work and to provide tools to individual users, media outlets, businesses, and governments to prevent and address problems caused by misinformation.

iii) Publishing journalistic content, educational resources and comment and opinion pieces in its areas of interest and expertise (including news and media literacy, fact-checking, information disorders, media criticism, and other relevant technologies)

iv) Conducting and publishing policy research and investigations in its areas of interest

4) Over the coming year, Logically says its goals are:

i) "To continue developing a sustainable, responsible, and ethical business model which allows for high-quality fact-checks to be conducted at scale to serve the needs of media institutions, businesses, individuals and the world at large."

ii) "To continue to develop technologies and systems to support ourselves and the wider fact-checking community in our work."

iii) "To partner with non-partisan media, civic and governmental organisations to develop ways to use fact-checking to combat the effects of misinformation."

iv) To continue to work with, support, and critically engage with the community of journalists, NGOs, businesses and civic groups who work in good faith to fight misinformation."


done_all 1.2 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 1.3
Proof you meet criteria
- The applicant has published an average of at least one fact check a week over the course of the six months prior to the date of application.
- For applicants from countries with at least 5 or more verified signatories need to have at least a fact check a week over the twelve months of publishing track.
- Consult to factchecknet@poynter.org for confirmation.

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

Logically handles a very large volume of fact checks, mostly submitted through users of our app (some claims are also submitted by us internally on topics of relevance or which require urgent attention through our in-house fact checking tool).

We have attached a list of 53 fact checks completed between July 2020-July 2021 which we have compiled as a broad representation of the scope of topics which we cover. All claims which fall within our scope and are otherwise suitable to be checked (please see section 2.2 for details on our criteria for claim validity) are investigated by our fact checkers and a verdict shared with the user who submitted the claim. The selection of topics across our submission shows that the vast majority of both the claims we check and the claims we publish fall under the IFCN's definition of being in the public interest. COVID-19 is by far the most common topic we have addressed over the last year, with a majority of the remainder comprising substantive political issues or potentially inflammatory rumours. Because Logically checks every valid claim submitted by a user, we have limited discretion over the range of topics we research; we generally see roughly 5-10% of submitted claims which wouldn't satisfy the IFCN definition of 'in the public interest', on topics such as history, entertainment, science and trivia.

We have also attached a list of all the claims we have published on our website between July 1 2020 and July 1 2021 to show that we have complied with the above-stated requirement.

NB: We automatically affix a statement concerning COVID-19 and add the WHO as a source to the end of any fact check which is tagged as related COVID-19.

Files Attached
description Logically Fact Check... (513 KB)
Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

With its large fact-checking staff and using AI technology, Logically handles "a very large volume" of fact checks, mostly submitted through users of its app. Some fact-checks are also generated internally "on topics of relevance or which require urgent attention through our in-house fact-checking tool."

As proof that it meets this criterion, Logically submitted a list of 53 fact-checks completed between July 2020-July 2021, which are a broad representation of the scope of topics it says it covers. The assessor has checked the submitted fact-checks and is satisfied that they do, indeed, cover a broad range of issues.


done_all 1.3 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 1.4
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will assess compliance through a review of the fact checks published over the previous three months. No additional information required.

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

We have attached a complete list of all our published fact checks between April 1 2021 and July 1 2021, which can also be found at https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library. 

Files Attached
description Logically Fact Check... (82 KB)
Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Logically exceeds this criterion (See: https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library)


done_all 1.4 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 1.5
Proof you meet criteria
Please explain any commercial, financial and/or institutional relationship your organization has to the state, politicians or political parties in the country or countries you cover. Also explain funding or support received from foreign as well as local state or political actors over the previous financial year.

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

Logically currently has no commercial, institutional or financial relationships with any politician or political party.

Logically has worked and continues to work with several non-partisan governmental organisations. Below is an exhaustive list of all the work we have done with any governmental or government-adjacent organisation in reverse chronological order.

Since January 2021, we have been engaged by the UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport to provide social media monitoring of disinformation trends related to the COVID vaccine rollout and local and devolved elections. This contract was awarded following an accelerated open tender, and has since been renewed.

Logically is currently running pilot programs with local police forces in five states in India (Delhi, Karnataka, Chandigarh, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal) to improve their capabilities in using open source intelligence and social media monitoring.

During the 2020 US presidential elections Logically was engaged by election authorities in a major battleground state to monitor for online misinformation threats which threatened to disrupt the integrity of the polling within that state.

In the first half of 2020, we partnered with Mysore police, Karnataka, to provide the police with fact checks concerning COVID-19.

During the Maharashtra Assembly elections in 2019, Logically partnered with the Maharashtra Cyber Cell to detect and track election misinformation.

Logically has and will continue to apply for funding offered by groups including responsible and non-partisan state, governmental and supranational bodies, to participate in relevant schemes, competitions and programs which may be supported by non-partisan governmental actors, and to offer its services (either on a commercial or a pro bono basis) to responsible and non-partisan state and governmental bodies. All of our work is conducted in accordance with our client ethics policy.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Logically says in its applications that it "currently" has no commercial, institutional or financial relationships with any politician or political party.

But it has worked -  and continues to - work with several non-partisan governmental organisations, it says.

These services and programmes are:

i) providing social media monitoring of disinformation trends related to the COVID vaccine rollout and local and devolved elections since January 2021, for the UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport. This contract was awarded following an accelerated open tender and has since been renewed.

ii) Logically is currently running pilot programmes with local police forces in five states in India (Delhi, Karnataka, Chandigarh, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal) to help them improve their capabilities in using open source intelligence and social media monitoring.

iii) During the 2020 US presidential elections Logically was engaged by election authorities in an unnamed "major battleground state" to monitor for online misinformation threats which threatened to disrupt the integrity of the polling within this state.

iv) Logically partnered with Mysore police in Karnataka, to provide it with fact-checks about COVID-19.

v) Logically partnered with the Maharashtra Cyber Cell to detect and track election misinformation during the Maharashtra Assembly elections in 2019.

It "has and will continue to apply for funding offered by groups, including responsible and non-partisan state, governmental and supranational bodies, to participate in relevant schemes, competitions and programs which may be supported by non-partisan governmental actors, and to offer its services (either on a commercial or a pro bono basis) to responsible and non-partisan state and bodies. All of our work is conducted in accordance with our client ethics policy," Logically says in its application.


done_all 1.5 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 1.6
Proof you meet criteria
If you confirmed the organization receives funding from local or foreign state or political sources, provide a link to where on your website you set out how you ensure the editorial independence of your work.

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago)

We publish details of the way that Logically's editorial division is organised in relation to the rest of the company on our Transparency page https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency as well as the steps we currently take to ensure that proper editorial independence cannot be compromised by commercial interests of any kind, especially any potential governmental funding sources.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

See section "Editorial Independence": https://bit.ly/3AvaMUP 

From Logicallyt application:

"The principle of editorial independence is of paramount importance in Logically’s mission. We practice editorial independence in order to fulfill our mission of being a reliable source of high-quality information to our users, and we scrupulously ensure that no reasonable person could infer any systematic partisan bias from our output, or from the way that our business is organised or conducted.

We practice editorial independence by ensuring that the subjects and conclusions of our fact-checks, writings and investigations are only ever directed by our curiosity, the available evidence, responsible research practices, and Logically’s mission and values.

We have taken steps to ensure that the commercial interests of Logically can never influence our editorial output. These steps include:

i) Members of the editorial team are prohibited from participating in any discussions concerning specific commercial opportunities.

ii) Any Logically project must undergo an ethics review, as a part of which any potential risk to Logically’s reputation for non-partisanship must be anticipated and addressed.

No editorial output of any kind is subject to final approval by any member of Logically outside of the editorial team.

The senior editor reports directly to the CEO on all matters, except those which could reasonably be construed as falling under proper independent editorial discretion; in those matters, the senior editor will continue to operate with full editorial discretion until such time as an editorial board can be established, at which point that board will be the final deciding body on editorial matters."


done_all 1.6 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Section 2: A commitment to Non-partisanship and Fairness

To be compliant on nonpartisanship and fairness, applicants must meet these five criteria

  • 2.1 The applicant fact-checks using the same high standards of evidence and judgement for equivalent claims regardless of who made the claim.
  • 2.2 The applicant does not unduly concentrate its fact-checking on any one side, considers the reach and importance of claims it selects to check and publishes a short statement on its website to set out how it selects claims to check.
  • 2.3 The applicant discloses in its fact checks relevant interests of the sources it quotes where the reader might reasonably conclude those interests could influence the accuracy of the evidence provided. It also discloses in its fact checks any commercial or other such relationships it has that a member of the public might reasonably conclude could influence the findings of the fact check.
  • 2.4 The applicant is not as an organization affiliated with nor declares or shows support for any party, any politician or political candidate, nor does it advocate for or against any policy positions on any issues save for transparency and accuracy in public debate.
  • 2.5 The applicant sets out its policy on non-partisanship for staff on its site. Save for the issues of accuracy and transparency, the applicant’s staff do not get involved in advocacy or publicise their views on policy issues the organization might fact check in such a way as might lead a reasonable member of the public to see the organization’s work as biased.

Criteria 2.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please share links to 10 fact checks published over the past year that you believe demonstrate your non-partisanship.
Please briefly explain how the fact checks selected show that (I) you use the same high standards of evidence for equivalent claims, (II) follow the same essential process for every fact check and (III) let the evidence dictate your conclusions.

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

The way Logically is set up makes it extremely difficult for systematic biases to emerge in our fact checks. We have very limited editorial discretion in the claims we check, since they are almost entirely submitted by users of our app. Our fact checking network is also widely distributed, with a large team of diverse backgrounds and political persuasions. As such, it would be extremely difficult for us to intentionally or negligently unduly focus our fact checks on any one side, or to systematically favour one side or another in our reasoning or judgements.

Below is a list of ten fact checks which we believe illustrate our non-partisanship. We have summarised the judgement in each case, who the overall political beneficiary or target of the claim was, and whether our judgement favoured them or not. We also provide a short statement concerning the evidence brought to bear in each case.

1. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/f762636f

This claim states that Starbucks supports and funds Israel and is adjudicated as being ‘False’.

The claim seeks to establish a link between the Starbucks Corporation and the State of Israel and the Israeli Army. We evaluated publicly available evidence regarding the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement, lack of any reputable news sources, statements made by the company spokesperson as well as the antecedents of the company’s ex-CEO Howard Schultz. We established that this claim is false since none of the publicly available sources analysed backed up the claim.

2. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/66d694b9

This claim states that Kamala Harris has tried to keep inmates in California prisons locked up for cheap labor and is adjudicated as being ‘Misleading’.

This claim indicts Vice President Kamala Harris for being responsible for denying non-violent, second time offenders the chance to get early parole. Upon reviewing the judicial proceedings in the matter, we found that the lawyers from Harris’s office when she was Attorney General had unsuccessfully argued that if certain potential parolees were given a faster track out of prison, it would negatively affect the prison's labor programs. Upon finding out, Harris directed the department’s lawyers not to make the argument again and negotiated a separate deal. We established that this claim is misleading because it misattributes the arguments made by lawyers in her office to Harris.

3. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/57ec269b

This claim is based on The Daily Expose article which states that 62 percent of COVID-19 deaths in the U.K. are among people who are vaccinated and is adjudicated as being ‘Misleading’.

Upon reviewing the report released by Public Health England, we found that while the data was correct, the claim lacked important context which was not included in the original article. PHE has previously announced on several occasions that older people and those with weakened immune systems are more vulnerable to the SARS-CoV- 2 virus than the average population. The PHE report highlights that all the deaths in people who received both doses were among those over the age of 50. Additionally, the report explicitly mentioned that vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization was as high as 96 percent. Once the context around the data was made clear, we adjudicated the claim as ‘Misleading’.

4. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/62b1e21b

This claim states that the UN has stated that the Israeli occupation of Palestine is illegal and is adjudicated as being ‘True’.

We reviewed statements made by United Nations since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, and found that it has maintained that Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is “illegal and invalid” and recognizes the region as an occupied Palestinian Territory.

5. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/8593718a

This claim states that European countries cannot mandate compulsory childhood vaccinations and was adjudicated as being ‘False’.

We analysed the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment on Czech Republic’s policy of introducing compulsory childhood vaccinations against certain diseases and found that the Court is of the view that the policy does not contravene the European Convention on Human Rights and that the policy could be regarded as being necessary in democratic societies. Since it is well within the purview of European countries to mandate compulsory vaccinations for children against certain diseases, the judgment is marked as false.

6. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/d296e12e

This claim states that the Indian government is not monitoring adverse events from COVID-19 vaccines and is adjudicated as being ‘False’.

We found and reviewed the data released by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in India and found that the Ministry has released information about people’s adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines and therefore adjudicated this claim as ‘False’.

7. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/b1ab735e

This claim states that Nancy Pelosi praised the storming of the Wisconsin State Capitol in 2011 and is adjudicated as being ‘Misleading’.

We found that the claim was missing important information and context wherein Pelosi expressed solidarity with the workers and students of Wisconsin, but found that she did not explicitly support the storming of the State Capitol building. We found it appropriate to mark the claim as being ‘misleading’ because while Pelosi did express solidarity with the protestors in Wisconsin, she did not expressly praise the storming of the State Capitol in 2011.

8. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/0d5efcb2

This claim likens Joe Biden to Adolf Hitler due to both of them signing 40 executive orders in a period of one week and is adjudicated as being ‘Misleading’.

We found that while Biden had signed 24 executive orders within his first week of being President, the comparison to Hitler drew a false equivalence between the two. Since it is unfair to compare executive orders signed by an elected president to the actions of a dictator, we found the claim to be ‘Misleading’.

9. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/0d55a23a

This claim states that it is possible to buy guns without background checks at gun shows in the U.S. and is adjudicated as being ‘Partly True’.

Upon reviewing the publicly accessible evidence from reputable sources on the matter, we found that while federally licensed dealers are required to undertake criminal background checks when making a sale at gun shows, unlicensed sellers are not and therefore found the claim to be only partially true.

10. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/b1e9cdd4

This claim states that Joe Biden has supported racist policies and is adjudicated as being ‘Partly True’.

Upon analysing publicly available records and Biden’s previous policy positions, we found that while President Biden made racial equality a main feature of his 2020 presidential campaign, he has been criticised for his remarks and positions on race issues in the past.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

In its application, Logically says: "The way Logically is set up makes it extremely difficult for systematic biases to emerge in our fact-checks. We have very limited editorial discretion in the claims we check since they are almost entirely submitted by users of our app. Our fact-checking network is also widely distributed, with a large team of diverse backgrounds and political persuasions. As such, it would be extremely difficult for us to intentionally or negligently unduly focus our fact-checks on any one side, or to systematically favour one side or another in our reasoning or judgments."

An examination of the 10 links submitted by Logically, and the explanations for each, show that the same standards and processes were followed for each. It is also clear that the conclusions are soley based on the evidence presented for each of them. 


done_all 2.1 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 2.2
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to a place on your website where you explain how you select claims to check, explaining how you ensure you do not unduly concentrate your fact-checking on any one side, and how you consider the reach and importance of the claims you select to check.

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

We publish information in the FAQ section of our Fact Checking page (www.logically.ai/factchecks) on how we select claims to check (or more accurately in our case, under what conditions we reject claims submitted to us for checking), and how we select which claims to publish on our website.

Because we conduct a fact check on any suitable claim submitted to us, there is limited editorial discretion available to us concerning the quantity, topic or diversity of claims we check, and of what we return to users. However, we do ensure that the fact checks which we display as highlights, and in our fact check library, meet appropriate standards of interest and fairness, as described in the information published on our website.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

From Logically's application: "Because we conduct a fact check on any suitable claim submitted to us, there is limited editorial discretion available to us concerning the quantity, topic or diversity of claims we check, and of what we return to users. However, we do ensure that the fact-checks which we display as highlights, and in our fact check library, meet appropriate standards of interest and fairness, as described in the information published on our website."

See under FAQs: "How do we select claims", "How do we choose sources and "Non-partisanship": https://bit.ly/3jraY0o 


done_all 2.2 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 2.3
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will assess compliance through a review of the fact checks published over the previous year. No additional information required.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Logically meets the required criteria.


done_all 2.3 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 2.4
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will assess compliance through a review of the fact checks published over the previous year. No additional information required.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Logically meets the required criteria.


done_all 2.4 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 2.5
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to a place on your website where you publish a statement setting out your policy on non-partisanship for staff and how it ensures the organization meets this criteria.

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

Our non-partisanship policy, which applies to all staff in the editorial division, is published in summary on our fact check page https://www.logically.ai/factchecks?faq=non-partisanship , with further explanation on our ‘Transparency’ page https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency. We also attach a full version of our political activity policy, which is signed by all staff in the editorial division.Breaches of our political activity policy are subject to disciplinary action and possible dismissal. 

Our client ethics policy found at https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency, also requires any staff to disclose any potential conflicts of financial or political interest in working on any project, and also to determine in advance of any project whether that project might undermine Logically's reputation for non-partisanship. No project can pass ethics review until reviewers (including one who is external to the company) unanimously agree that there is no significant risk of a conflict of interest arising as a result of the project, nor that it might undermine our commitment to non-partisanship. All staff members at Logically are also contractually obliged not to conduct any activity which might unduly damage Logically's reputation, which would include damaging our reputation for non-partisanship


Files Attached
picture_as_pdf Political activity p... (41 KB)
Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

See: "Non-partisanship": https://bit.ly/3jraY0o 

There is also additional information on the "Transparency" page. Also, see "Editorial Independence" and "Client Ethics Policy" on the "Transparency" page.

A Client Ethics Policy, which spells out who Logically will work, is an excellent idea that other fact-checking organisations might consider including on their websites.                                               

Logically states that: 

"We won’t enter into any contract which would be incompatible with our mission of enhancing civic discourse, protecting democratic debate and process, and providing access to trustworthy information.

We will not engage in any partnership which would undermine our commitment to political non-partisanship.

This approach is underpinned by a robust ethics review process, designed to ensure that any new contract or project is aligned with these standards.

We won’t enter into any contract where there's a reasonable likelihood the client would use the information that we find to cause undue harm to any person or group or threaten to undermine the human rights of any person or group.

All commercial contracts include a specific, limited and targeted scope within which our products and services are licensed for use, agreed between Logically and the client. Any violation of those terms will result in termination of service."

All Logically staff are required to sign the company's Political Activity Policy. A breach of this policy "could result in disciplinary action or dismissal."


done_all 2.5 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Section 3: A commitment to Standards and Transparency of Sources

To be compliant on sources, applicants must meet these four criteria

  • 3.1 The applicant identifies the source of all significant evidence used in their fact checks, providing relevant links where the source is available online, in such a way that users can replicate their work if they wish. In cases where identifying the source would compromise the source’s personal security, the applicant provides as much detail as compatible with the source’s safety.
  • 3.2 The applicant uses the best available primary, not secondary, sources of evidence wherever suitable primary sources are available. Where suitable primary sources are not available, the applicant explains the use of a secondary source.
  • 3.3 The applicant checks all key elements of claims against more than one named source of evidence save where the one source is the only source relevant on the topic.
  • 3.4 The applicant identifies in its fact checks the relevant interests of the sources it uses where the reader might reasonably conclude those interests could influence the accuracy of the evidence provided.

Criteria 3.1
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the applicant’s use of sources in a randomised sample of its fact checks to assess compliance. No additional evidence is required.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Logically meets the required criteria. interestingly, they supply a variety of links to sources at the end of fact-checks under the headings: "Supports", "Refutes", and "Neutral". This allows users to not only replicate the fact-check but also read further about what others have reported on the issue.


done_all 3.1 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 3.2
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the applicant’s use of sources in a randomised sample of its fact checks to assess compliance. No additional evidence is required.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Logically meets the required criteria.


done_all 3.2 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 3.3
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the applicant’s use of sources in a randomised sample of its fact checks to assess compliance. No additional evidence is required.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Logically meets the required criteria.


done_all 3.3 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 3.4
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the applicant’s use of sources in a randomised sample of its fact checks to assess compliance. No additional evidence is required.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Logically meets the required criteria.


done_all 3.4 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Section 4: A commitment to Transparency of Funding & Organization

To be compliant on funding and organization, applicants must meet these five criteria

  • 4.1 Applicants that are independent organizations have a page on their website detailing each source of funding accounting for 5% or more of total revenue for its previous financial year. This page also sets out the legal form in which the organization is registered (e.g. as a non-profit, as a company etc).
  • 4.2 Applicants that are the fact-checking section or unit of a media house or other parent organization make a statement on ownership.
  • 4.3 A statement on the applicant’s website sets out the applicant’s organizational structure and makes clear how and by whom editorial control is exercised.
  • 4.4 A page on the applicant’s website details the professional biography of all those who, according to the organizational structure and play a significant part in its editorial output.
  • 4.5 The applicant provides easy means on its website and/or via social media for users to communicate with the editorial team.

Criteria 4.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please confirm whether you are an ‘independent organization’
or ‘the fact-checking section or unit of a media house or other parent organization’ and share proof of this organizational status.

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

Logically Fact Check is the fact checking unit of Logically’s Editorial Division, which in turn is a division of TheLogically Ltd. For proof of organizational status, see section 4.2.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Logically Fact Check is the fact-checking unit of Logically’s editorial division, which in turn is a division of  TheLogically Ltd. 

The Logically fact-checking unit is a distinct team - set up exclusively for the purposes of fact-checking- within the editorial division of TheLogically Ltd, a private company, trading under the name ‘Logically’.

Details of how Logically is structured and where the fact-checking unit fits in can be found here: https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency

It is registered Companies House in the UK as a Private Limited Company https://bit.ly/3lBy0UQ


done_all 4.1 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 4.2
Proof you meet criteria
If your organization is an “independent organization”, please share a link to the page on your website where you detail your funding and indicate the legal form in which the organization is registered (e.g. as a non-profit, as a company etc).
If your organization is “the fact-checking section or unit of a media house or other parent organization”, please share a link to the statement on your website about your ownership.

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

We publish the following statement on our website on our ‘Transparency’ page (www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency)

"TheLogically (trading as Logically) is a UK registered company (no. 10850644; you can check our records at Companies House here [ https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10850644 ]). Logically was founded in 2017 by CEO Lyric Jain. Logically is funded by a combination of Lyric's personal investment in the company (using personal savings and money from family business Eliza Tinsley [ https://elizatinsley.co.uk/ ], by venture capital investment from the Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund [ https://www.npif.co.uk/ ], managed by Mercia Asset Management [ https://www.mercia.co.uk/ ] , and investment from XTX Ventures [ https://www.xtxmarkets.com/ ]. Lyric Jain remains the only person with significant control of Logically." Our ‘Investment’ page (https://www.logically.ai/investment) contains a more detailed statement about how Logically is funded.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

See ‘Transparency’ page www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency 

"TheLogically (trading as Logically) is a UK registered company (no. 10850644). Companies House listing here https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10850644

"Logically was founded in 2017 by CEO Lyric Jain. Logically is funded by a combination of Lyric's personal investment in the company (using personal savings and money from family business Eliza Tinsley (https://elizatinsley.co.uk/). It is also funded by venture capital investment from the Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund (https://www.npif.co.uk/), managed by Mercia Asset Management (https://www.mercia.co.uk/), and investment from XTX Ventures (https://www.xtxmarkets.com/). Lyric Jain remains the only person with significant control of Logically." Our ‘Investment’ page (https://www.logically.ai/investment) contains a more detailed statement about how Logically is funded."


done_all 4.2 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 4.3
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to where on your website you set out your organizational structure, making clear how and by whom editorial control is exercised.

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

Our organisational structure is set out in our 'Transparency' page https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency

On that page we also give some information about how we ensure the proper independence of our editorial division, and make it clear that editorial control is ultimately exercised by the Managing Editor.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Logically's organisational structure is set out on its 'Transparency' page" https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency

This sets out the proper independence of the company's editorial division, making it clear that ultimate editorial control is exercised by the managing editor.


done_all 4.3 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 4.4
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to where on your website you set out the professional biographies of those who play a significant part in your organization’s editorial output.

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

At https://www.logically.ai/team we publish the names, photographs and biographies of everybody who works within the Editorial Division, together with the same information concerning senior managers within the company.

Some of our fact checkers refer to themselves using only their first name and initials. We would like to make clear that this is not an attempt at pseudonymisation, but rather a standard naming convention in some parts of Southern India, where many of our fact checkers are based.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

See https://www.logically.ai/team  in fact-checking tab. This page has photographs and biographies of everybody who works within the Editorial Division. The fact-checking tab lists members of the fact-checking team.

In its application, Logically has pointed out that some of the fact-checkers are referred to using only first name and initials. 

"We would like to make clear that this is not an attempt at pseudonymisation, but rather a standard naming convention in some parts of Southern India, where many of our fact-checkers are based," Logically says.


done_all 4.4 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 4.5
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to where on your website you encourage users to communicate with your editorial team.

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

There are calls to action on our About Us page and Fact Checking page which encourage users to contact our editorial team with comments, questions and complaints. There is a call to action on each of our published fact checks encouraging users to submit feedback and correction requests.

The calls to action lead to our Contact form, which is also prominently linked in both our main menu and website footer. The contact form specifically encourages users to contact our editorial team with questions or concerns about fact checking and provides options to ensure that their message is appropriately directed.

There is also prominent functionality in the Logically app to submit comments and correction requests to any of our fact checks.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

There are "calls to action" on the "About" page (https://www.logically.ai/about), leading to a "Contact Us" form. (https://www.logically.ai/contact). This encourages users to contact Logically's editorial team with comments, questions, and complaints. There is also a call to action on each published fact-check encouraging users to submit feedback and correction requests. For example, see the end of this fact-check https://bit.ly/3AeolYv)

Calls to action lead to the "Contact "form, which is also prominently linked in both the main menu and website footer. The contact form specifically encourages users to contact the editorial team with questions or concerns about fact-checking and provides options to ensure that their message is appropriately directed.

There is also prominent functionality in the Logically app to submit comments and correction requests to any published fact checks.


done_all 4.5 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Section 5: A commitment to Standards and Transparency of Methodology

To be compliant on methodology, applicants must meet these six criteria

  • 5.1 The applicant publishes on its website a statement about the methodology it uses to select, research, write and publish its fact checks.
  • 5.2 The applicant selects claims to check based primarily on the reach and importance of the claims, and where possible explains the reason for choosing the claim to check.
  • 5.3 The applicant sets out in its fact checks relevant evidence that appears to support the claim as well as relevant evidence that appears to undermine it.
  • 5.4 The applicant in its fact checks assesses the merits of the evidence found using the same high standards applied to evidence on equivalent claims, regardless of who made the claim.
  • 5.5 The applicant seeks where possible to contact those who made the claim to seek supporting evidence, noting that (I) this is often not possible with online claims, (II) if the person who makes the claim fails to reply in a timely way this should not impede the fact check, (III) if a speaker adds caveats to the claim, the fact-checker should be free to continue with checking the original claim, (IV) fact-checkers may not wish to contact the person who made the claim for safety or other legitimate reasons.
  • 5.6 The applicant encourages users to send in claims to check, while making it clear what readers can legitimately expect will be fact-checked and what isn’t fact-checkable.

Criteria 5.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please provide a link to the statement on your website that explains the methodology you use to select, research, write and publish your fact checks.

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

Details concerning our methodology for selecting, researching, writing and publishing fact checks can be found in the FAQ section of our 'Fact Check' page at https://www.logically.ai/factchecks 

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

See FAQs on "Fact-Check" page: https://www.logically.ai/factchecks 


done_all 5.1 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 5.2
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the methodology used in a randomised sample of your fact checks to assess compliance with these criteria. No additional evidence is required.

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago


Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Logically meets the required criteria.


done_all 5.2 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 5.3
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the methodology used in a randomised sample of your fact checks to assess compliance with these criteria. No additional evidence is required.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Logically meets the required criteria.


done_all 5.3 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 5.4
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the methodology used in a randomised sample of your fact checks to assess compliance with these criteria. No additional evidence is required.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Logically meets the required criteria.


done_all 5.4 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 5.5
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the methodology used in a randomised sample of your fact checks to assess compliance with these criteria. No additional evidence is required.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Logically meets the required criteria.


done_all 5.5 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 5.6
Proof you meet criteria
Please describe how you encourage users to send in claims to check, while making it clear what readers can legitimately expect will be fact-checked and what isn’t fact-checkable. Include links where appropriate. If you do not allow this, explain why.

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

Logically's principal source of claims to check is user submissions. We encourage user submission of fact checks in our app, browser extension, in our marketing, and in several places on our website (including our 'About' page and 'Fact Check' page).

We set out the process by which our claims are checked, and the circumstances in which we may reject a submitted claim, in the FAQ section of our 'Fact Check' page ( www.logically.ai/factchecks ).

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Logically's principal source of claims to check is via user submissions. It also encourages user submissions of fact-checks in its app, browser extension, and marketing, as well as in several places on it website (including  "About" and "Fact Check" pages).

The process by which claims are checked, and the circumstances in which Logically may reject a submitted claim, is explained in the FAQ section of the 'Fact Check' page ( www.logically.ai/factchecks ).


done_all 5.6 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Section 6: A commitment to an Open & Honest Corrections Policy

To be compliant on corrections policy, applicants must meet these five criteria

  • 6.1 The applicant has a corrections or complaints policy that is easily visible and accessible on the organization’s website or frequently referenced in broadcasts.
  • 6.2 The policy sets out clear definitions of what it does and does not cover, how major mistakes, especially those requiring revised conclusions of a fact check, are handled, and the fact that some complaints may justify no response. This policy is adhered to scrupulously.
  • 6.3 Where credible evidence is provided that the applicant has made a mistake worthy of correction, the applicant makes a correction openly and transparently, seeking as far as possible to ensure that users of the original see the correction and the corrected version.
  • 6.4 The applicant, if an existing signatory, should either on its corrections/complaints page or on the page where it declares itself an IFCN signatory inform users that if they believe the signatory is violating the IFCN Code, they may inform the IFCN, with a link to the IFCN site.
  • 6.5 If the applicant is the fact-checking unit of a media company, it is a requirement of signatory status that the parent media company has and adheres to an open and honest corrections policy.

Criteria 6.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please provide a link to where you publish on your website your corrections or complaints policy. If you are primarily a broadcaster, please provide evidence you frequently reference your corrections policy in broadcasts.

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

Our corrections policy is published at www.logically.ai/factchecks under the FAQ section.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Corrections policy: https://www.logically.ai/factchecks?faq=corrections 


"Journalistic Corrections and Right of Reply

If you notice something published in our journalistic, research or educational output which you believe to be inaccurate, misleading or unfair, please submit a correction request to our editorial team on our contact us page. Any complaints will be raised to the senior editor and responded to within 48 hours. Any complaint found to have substantive merit will be publicly corrected, and the correction given equal prominence to the article in question. We offer anybody who was the subject of criticism in our reporting the right to reply, provided a prima facie case can be made that our criticisms can be fairly addressed. Reasons for any refusal to grant a right to reply will be published on our website.

If you believe Logically is violating the IFCN code of principles, you can inform the IFCN directly here. >>> links to IFCN Corrections Policy page: https://bit.ly/2S4TNok


done_all 6.1 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 6.2
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the corrections policy to verify it meets critera. No additional information needed.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Logically meet the criteria.


done_all 6.2 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 6.3
Proof you meet criteria
Please provide a short statement about how the policy was adhered to over the previous year (or six months if this is the first application) including evidence of two examples of the responses provided by the applicant to a correction request over the previous year. Where no correction request has been made in the previous year, you must state this in your application, which will be publicly available in the assessment if your application is successful.

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

Over the previous 12 months, we have received approximately 410 requests for corrections. Out of these, 160 requests for corrections were submitted through our app and 250 through our website form. Of these, only a minority were reasonable requests (with the rest falling under the categories of general grievances, random strings of words, or irrelevant abuse).

We also internally review our fact check library, and make corrections and/or updates where necessary.

Of the substantive complaints we received between July 2020 and July 2021, 36 resulted in substantive corrections being published.

Below are two examples of external correction requests we have received, together with brief statements describing how they were addressed.

CLAIM: The U.S. government is keeping migrant children in cages at the U.S.- Mexico border. (https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/62525c63)

Initial Judgement: False

Revised Judgement: Misleading

We received the following message through our app: This judgment is based on the fact that Biden changed the walls of the cell from a chain link fence to Plexiglas that they are not being held in cages. What a joke.

We published this fact check in April, initially marking it as false. At the time, photos of migrant children in facility centers with metal fencing were circulating on social media. These facility centers were no longer in operation, but pictures of them were still being posted by Donald Trump supporters (or Biden critics) – often to suggest that Joe Biden was doing a poor job at the U.S.-Mexico border.

We marked it as “false” not only because the photos were from the Trump administration and not the Biden administration, but also because the word “cage” usually connotes metal.

However, upon receipt of this user’s message, we accepted that the conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border were still poor, and the argument about cages being metallic or not was a technicality. With this in mind, we changed the judgment from “false” to “misleading.” We felt that it was important to mark the claim as “misleading” and not “true” to reflect that the pictures were out of context.

The user received a message to notify them that their complaint had been addressed and we added a “correction” sticker to the icon. We received no further correspondence from this user.

CLAIM: Vaccines are not important for adolescents, because they have a very low probability of disease or death from COVID. (https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/18ec6dcd)

Initial Judgement: False

Revised Judgement: False

We received this complaint from a user:

This refutation is confusing to me. The claim says "not important" because "unlikely to die". That's a complicated idea, but to open with "can contract ... sometimes leading to death" is non sequitur at best. To then explain that "few deaths and ... mild symptoms ... does not mean that severe cases and deaths have not been reported". That's what "few" means: non-zero.

At issue is best overall policy course, comparing vaccinating millions of young people (and we can identify and focus on the ones without underlying conditions) versus excluding them. Nothing in your refutation supports the idea that vaccinating is "important" for this group. It might be, and Malone coold be dead wrong in his assessment, but I can't see how you justify a "FALSE" rating for his claim.

Frankly, I think you are helping his case by giving him an example of an ad hominem counter argument without refuting the claim itself.

Can you do better here?

We published this fact check in July 2021. Upon receipt of this user’s message, we realized that we had overcomplicated our claim edit. We changed the claim from “vaccines are not important for adolescents, because they have a very low probability of disease or death from COVID” to a simpler “vaccines are not important for adolescents.”

We emailed the user, thanking him for his correspondence and saying that we had issued a correction. We added a “correction” sticker to the icon. We received no further correspondence from this user.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Over the previous 12 months, Logically says it received "approximately" 410 requests for corrections. Out of these, 160 requests for corrections were submitted through the Logically app 250 through its website form. "Of these, only a minority were reasonable requests (with the rest falling under the categories of general grievances, random strings of words, or irrelevant abuse)."

Logically says in its application that it also internally reviews its fact-check library, and makes corrections and/or updates where necessary.

Of the substantive complaints received between July 2020 and July 2021, 36 resulted in substantive corrections being published, Logically says.

I have checked the two examples supplied and the changes or corrections to the originals assessments are noted with an explanation at the end of the original fact-checks.

In the two examples supplied, the assessment outcome for one was changed from "false" to "misleading." In the second example. the originally published fact-check was edited for clarity, but the "false" assessment was not changed.



done_all 6.3 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 6.4
Proof you meet criteria
If you are an existing signatory, please provide a link to show where on your site you inform users that if they believe you are violating the IFCN Code, they may inform the IFCN of this, with a link to the complaints page on the IFCN site.

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

We inform users that they may inform the IFCN of any belief that we are violating the IFCN code of principles on our FAQ, where we detail our corrections policy (https://www.logically.ai/factchecks?faq=corrections)

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Users are informed that they can complain to IFCN  if they believe Logically is in violation of its (IFCN) code of principles, in a link that details the company's corrections policies.

See here: https://www.logically.ai/factchecks?faq=corrections 


done_all 6.4 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.

Criteria 6.5
Proof you meet criteria
If you are the fact-checking unit of a media company, please provide a link to the parent media company’s honest and open corrections policy and provide evidence that it adheres to this.

Logically
23-Jul-2021 (4 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

The corrections policy of the Editorial Division of Logically is published on the same page as our fact checking corrections policy, in our FAQ section: www.logically.ai/factchecks

The wider editorial team in its current form has only been operating since March 2020, and as yet we have received no substantive correction requests which have necessitated a correction to any of our published content.

Raymond Joseph Assessor
06-Aug-2021 (3 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

The corrections policy of Logially's editorial division is published on the same page as its fact-checking corrections policy, in the FAQ section: www.logically.ai/factchecks


done_all 6.5 marked as Compliant by Raymond Joseph.