[njrc9]

Agree. "Fact-checking" can never be more than assertions of a particular bias. I am surprised that this project has received so few critical comments along these lines here.

The idea that "specificity," such as what scientific research aims for, can be better evaluated for truthfulness or approach what "truly matters," as this project purports, is dubious. E.g., why would a notion that is more limited in scope matter more than something more vast (to use the word that it cites as an example)? In addition to its dystopian idea of a "source of truth," it completely dismisses "vague" language in the name of "science" or "factuality," which is utterly the opposite of science, which I thought was to understand ourselves and nature with as few presuppositions as possible.