Yeah that is completely understandable.

I guess it’s less of the standard “AI” that you may think of that simply just thinks of something and outputs something. But, has multiple preprocessing steps prior to detection and then post. So for instance, parsing an article by its sentences and analyzing the subjective statements such as “I feel great about XYZ”, would be flagged, while searching for statements that either back up such Claims with Data. Such as in the standard format of “Claim, Lead-in, Data, Warrant” in writing for example. Then, checking the data source recursively until it finds it is infact valid. Now this “validity” is threatening, because yeah that can be controlled. But, there can definitely be transparent and community led approaches to adjust what source is considered valid. Without resources an initial solution would be, creating a Person graph of these sources authors and/or mapping against a database of verifiable research repos such as JSTOR, finding linked papers mentioning the same anecdotes, or simply following a trail of links, until the link hit’s a trusted domain.

Then there is also the variable if all the sources were heavily weighted onto one side of the equation, where the topic can clearly have valid devil advocates/arguments. This is where bias can come in. Post processing would be finding possible “anti-arguments” to the claims and warrants (if available in there store of verifiable sources). The point is not to force a point, but to open the reader’s paradigm

I see how using “fact-checking” in my OP was pretty negative/controversial. But, there’s no sense of control of what is “morally right” or what is the “Capital T truth” trying to be imposed on my part as a computer scientist. I strongly agree that computer ethics need to be a focus. Seeing your perspective was a great take to keep in mind. But, the passion is mostly driven by the black-and-white culture of online opinions, hence your point about agenda.