The options, compared
Ask ChatGPT, dig up the sources yourself, or run a fact-checker that reads the captions for you. Below is where each one wins and where it breaks.
Works once the claim is already written out: you paste the quote into a chat and get an analysis. The weak spot is you — you have to notice what deserves checking, pause the video and copy the line out yourself. The answer comes from the model’s memory, and links are not guaranteed, nor always to the primary source.
The most reliable and most expensive route: find the agency report, match the number, check the date and the context. One claim takes 5–15 minutes; an hour-long video takes an evening. Newsrooms work this way, viewers don’t.
Facty reads the captions, finds the checkable claims itself, searches the web for each one and shows a verdict with links the moment the sentence is spoken. Nothing to copy, nothing missed — the whole video gets checked, not only the parts you caught.
Comparison
How to fact-check a video on YouTube: why automatic fact-checking from captions beats asking ChatGPT or digging up sources yourself.
| Comparison | Facty | ChatGPT | By hand |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fact-checking right as the video plays | Yes | No | No |
| A source link behind every claim | Yes | Partly | Yes |
| Re-checks the fact across multiple sources | Yes | Partly | Partly |
| Automatic — no copy-pasting quotes into a chat | Yes | No | No |
| Checks the whole video, not just what you noticed | Yes | Partly | No |
| Five verdict levels instead of true / false | Yes | No | No |
| Video in any language, verdict in yours | Yes | Partly | Partly |
Let the next video check itself.
Free 30 minutes a month, no card.
Русский 
Español 
Try for Free