Content policy

What TruthSeekers shows

Every question gets AI-written lenses grounded in retrieved sources, always labelled “AI-generated” and always citing what they draw on. Community members can add their own viewpoints and evidence underneath; those are clearly marked as community content and start hidden until a moderator approves them.

Showing a viewpoint is not an endorsement of it. Presenting an alternative view alongside the mainstream one is the point of the product, not a claim that both are equally likely to be true — see the evidence-strength labelling below for how we handle topics where they clearly aren’t.

Evidence-strength labelling

Each topic is classified one of three ways, shown on the results page:

• Contested — genuine open disagreement (e.g. who was responsible for a historical event with disputed facts). Shown as two lenses, given equal space.
• Settled, with dissent — the evidence clearly points one way, but an organised fringe claim exists (e.g. the moon landing). We say so with a banner, and the alternative lens is reframed to address the dissenting claim directly rather than presented as an equal possibility.
• Settled atrocity — a documented genocide or comparable atrocity with an organised denial campaign, on a short, deliberately narrow list reviewed by a person, not decided by the AI alone. We lead with the documented record; denial claims appear only in a clearly labelled, evidence-answered section, never as an equal lens.

A wrong classification is a real failure mode we take seriously. If you think a topic is mislabelled, use the “Report a problem with this” link on the lens itself.

What’s not allowed in community submissions

Evidence and viewpoints are removed, and repeated violations can lose posting privileges, for:

• Hateful or harassing content directed at a person or group
• Spam, or content unrelated to the topic it’s posted under
• Deliberately misleading claims, broken or spoofed links, or a source misrepresented as primary when it isn’t
• On a settled-atrocity topic specifically: content promoting denial of the documented record

How reporting works

Community evidence and viewpoints can be flagged directly (broken link, misleading, not a primary source, hateful or harassing, spam, off-topic). Three open flags from three different people send an item back to a moderator queue automatically.

AI-written lenses aren’t flagged the same way — they have no author and nothing to send “back to pending.” Instead, each lens has its own “Report a problem with this” link (inaccurate, unfair or biased, hateful or harassing, unsafe or harmful, or something else). Reports go to a moderator queue for review; they’re a signal, not an automatic takedown.