Considering that most "fact checkers" that I've seen seem to write more editorials than objective reports, I'm quite dubious about this kind of thing. I've seen

Considering that most "fact checkers" that I've seen seem to write more editorials than objective reports, I'm quite dubious about this kind of thing. I've seen too many "he's technically correct but..." to believe anything these checkers say. How do we know the "facts" that the system is checking the statements against are in fact themselves true? Does the system take into account the actual definition of lying? As in that a lie is knowingly making a false statement in an attempt to deceive. If the person speaking believes what they state is true then it is not a matter of lying or telling the truth, it's simply being mistaken or correct. Painting "Liar, Liar" on the forehead of a politician simply because he's mistaken is stupid and a bad thing for an election process. If the system gets it wrong, will they publish a correction in an equally visible manner and explain what the problem was? How can you trust such a system if they don't? These "fact checkers" have turned out to be an incredibly bad idea, especially during an election. The idea of fact checking faster only makes it exponentially worse.