Trust Me Bro
Check a claim against published research. Get a receipt.
문서
[
The Trust Feed SUPPORTED · Fact-checking organizations cannot keep pace with the volume of claims published online SUPPORTED · Rhodium has atomic number 45.REFUTED · Goldfish have a memory span of only three seconds REFUTED · Henry Ford stated that if he had asked customers what they wanted they would have said faster horses REFUTED · The Great Wall of China is visible from space with the naked eye REFUTED · Bulls get angry when they see the color red.SUPPORTED · Fact-checking organizations cannot keep pace with the volume of claims published online SUPPORTED · Rhodium has atomic number 45.REFUTED · Goldfish have a memory span of only three seconds REFUTED · Henry Ford stated that if he had asked customers what they wanted they would have said faster horses REFUTED · The Great Wall of China is visible from space with the naked eye REFUTED · Bulls get angry when they see the color red.
The problem: the internet runs on unproven claims.
Most of what you read is asserted, not sourced. AI made it faster to assert and no easier to check.
trustmebro.to/is-it-true/fact-checkers-cannot-keep-pace
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Fact-checking organizations cannot keep pace with the volume of claims published online
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
3 sources for · 0 against
Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.
Is it true that fact-checking organizations cannot keep pace with the volume of claims published online?
Yes. Evidence consistently shows that traditional, manual fact-checking organizations struggle and ultimately fail to keep pace with the sheer volume of claims published online, motivating the development of automated computational tools.
Verdict: SUPPORTED · 3 sources for, 0 against · Last checked 28 Jul 2026
The analysis
The claim that fact-checking organizations cannot keep pace with the volume of online claims is widely supported in the literature, notably by older foundational work (e.g., Ciampaglia et al., 2015) as well as recent automated fact-checking studies (e.g., Hu et al., 2026; Chen et al., 2025) emphasizing the need for AI solutions due to human scalability limits. There are no papers refuting this widely acknowledged constraint.
Performance of Large Language Models in the Cognitive Analysis of Misinformation: Evaluation Study.
Human moderators face significant challenges regarding scalability when attempting to keep pace with the volume of online misinformation.
Get citation
DN, W., C, M., L, Z., C, P., & R, M. (2026). Performance of Large Language Models in the Cognitive Analysis of Misinformation: Evaluation Study.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.2196/72524
See more details
Traditional manual fact-checking approaches are resource-intensive and unable to match the pace at which misinformation spreads online.
Get citation
S, E., J, M., S, B., & A, G. (2025). Development and validation of a multi-agent AI pipeline for automated credibility assessment of tobacco misinformation: a proof-of-concept study.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2025.1659861
Computational Fact Checking from Knowledge Networks
Traditional fact-checking by expert journalists cannot keep up with the enormous volume of information generated online.
Get citation
Ciampaglia, G. L., Shiralkar, P., Rocha, L. M., Bollen, J., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2015). Computational Fact Checking from Knowledge Networks. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128193
What does the evidence say?
The claim that fact-checking organizations cannot keep pace with the volume of online claims is widely supported in the literature, notably by older foundational work (e.g., Ciampaglia et al., 2015) as well as recent automated fact-checking studies (e.g., Hu et al., 2026; Chen et al., 2025) emphasizing the need for AI solutions due to human scalability limits. There are no papers refuting this widely acknowledged constraint.
Receipt History
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.
Trust, the solution: two shapes.
One for the claim, one for the argument. Both point at recorded evidence.
A citation
A real paper: authors, year, DOI, in your format.
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380.
For source citations
A receipt
The claim, the verdict, both sides, on a shareable link.
For arguments
Inspect the sources.
A citation identifies a source; it does not establish that the source supports your claim. Check the source text, context and the receipt's recorded limitations. 22,048 receipts minted.
Everything between "source?" and "oh!"
Citations & receipts Check a claim and inspect the sources returned for it. Coverage is limited; a citation is not guaranteed for every claim.
Read the recorded outcome Inspect the verdict, evidence and limitations, including partial or unavailable outcomes.
Inspect the excerpts Check quotations against the original source and read their context.
Retraction information Scans look up recorded DOIs in OpenAlex. They do not cover every source or guarantee an overnight update.
Highlight a claim On supported pages, select text and use right-click or your configured shortcut. Bro and Pro can enable the optional selection button after accepting the disclosure and browser page access. Selecting text alone sends no claim.
Challenge a receipt Sign in to submit a counter-source for manual review. Submission does not automatically re-run the engine.
See how the pipeline actually works
The receipts. Here's what that actually looks like:
Receipt of the day
trustmebro.to/is-it-true/goldfish-have-a-three-second-memory
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Goldfish have a memory span of only three seconds
the verdict
REFUTED
the evidence says no
Recorded sources
0 sources for · 4 against
Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.
Is it true that Goldfish have a memory span of only three seconds?
No. Scientific consensus and fact-checking sources debunk the idea that goldfish only have a three-second memory, proving their memory spans last for months.
Verdict: REFUTED · 0 sources for, 4 against · Last checked 28 Jul 2026
How claims like this are judged
Judged on the fact-checker and reference record: claims of this kind are settled by fact-checkers and reference works, not journal abstracts.
Reference article covering this claim directly
Get citation
Wikipedia: Goldfish. (n.d.). en.wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfish
See more details
Wikipedia: List of common misconceptions about science, technology, and mathematics
Reference article covering this claim directly
Get citation
Wikipedia: List of common misconceptions about science, technology, and mathematics. (n.d.). en.wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions_about_science,_technology,_and_mathematics
Book: QI: The Pocket Book of General Ignorance
Book matched on a full-text search for this claim
Get citation
Book: QI: The Pocket Book of General Ignorance. (2008). books.google.com. http://books.google.com/books?id=V7kMttNBLyIC&dq=Goldfish+have+a+memory+span+of+only+three+seconds&hl=&as_pt=BOOKS&source=gbs_api
Book: The Book of General Ignorance
Book matched on a full-text search for this claim
Get citation
Book: The Book of General Ignorance. (2007). books.google.com. http://books.google.com/books?id=AS8qAAAAYAAJ&dq=Goldfish+have+a+memory+span+of+only+three+seconds&hl=&as_pt=BOOKS&source=gbs_api
Receipt History
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.
trustmebro.to/is-it-true/rhodium-has-atomic-number-45
✓ checked
updated 21 Sep 2026
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Rhodium has atomic number 45.
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
4 sources for · 0 against
Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.
Is it true that Rhodium has atomic number 45?
Yes. Multiple independent reference sources and database entries confirm that rhodium is a chemical element with atomic number 45.
Verdict: SUPPORTED · 4 sources for, 0 against · Last checked 12 Sep 2026
Get citation
Rhodium. (n.d.). en.wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodium
2 recorded entries grouped as this source
Additional records of the same source are shown below. They are not counted as additional sources.
Get citation
Rhodium - Wikipedia. (n.d.). en.wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodium
See more details
Get citation
Iorio, L. (2026). Naming the Universe. play.google.com. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=8qevEQAAQBAJ&source=gbs_api
Organometallic Compounds of Cobalt, Rhodium, and Iridium
Get citation
White, C. (1985). Organometallic Compounds of Cobalt, Rhodium, and Iridium. books.google.com. http://books.google.com/books?id=GwXwAAAAMAAJ&dq=Rhodium+has+atomic+number+45.&hl=&as_pt=BOOKS&source=gbs_api
Get citation
ロジウム・アレルギーによる職業性皮膚症について. (n.d.). cir.nii.ac.jp. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1390001204799818240
The private library was unavailable for some searches in this check. Missing library results are not evidence against the claim.
Receipt History
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.
trustmebro.to/is-it-true/henry-ford-stated-that-if-he-had-asked-customers-what-they-wanted-they-would-hav
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Henry Ford stated that if he had asked customers what they wanted they would have said faster horses
the verdict
REFUTED
the evidence says no
Recorded sources
0 sources for · 1 against
Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.
Is it true that Henry Ford stated that if he had asked customers what they wanted they would have said faster horses?
No. Wikiquote lists this among quotations MISATTRIBUTED to Henry Ford — the words are widely repeated as theirs, and the archive records that they are not. Patrick Vlaskovits, "Henry Ford, Innovation, and That "Faster Horse" Quote," in "Harvard Business Review" (August 29, 2011).
Verdict: REFUTED · 0 sources for, 1 against · Last checked 31 Jul 2026
The analysis
Judged against the evidence record for claims of this kind.
Patrick Vlaskovits, "Henry Ford, Innovation, and That "Faster Horse" Quote," in "Harvard Business Review" (August 29, 2011).
Get citation
Wikiquote: Henry Ford. (n.d.). Wikiquote. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Ford
What does the evidence say?
Judged against the evidence record for claims of this kind.
Receipt History
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.
trustmebro.to/is-it-true/great-wall-of-china-visible-from-space
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
The Great Wall of China is visible from space with the naked eye
the verdict
REFUTED
the evidence says no
Recorded sources
0 sources for · 3 against
Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.
Is it true that the Great Wall of China is visible from space with the naked eye?
No. The claim that the Great Wall of China is visible from space with the naked eye is a widespread myth. Scientific sources and fact-checkers confirm that the wall cannot be readily distinguished from space without magnification.
Verdict: REFUTED · 0 sources for, 3 against · Last checked 28 Jul 2026
How claims like this are judged
Judged on the fact-checker and reference record: claims of this kind are settled by fact-checkers and reference works, not journal abstracts.
Snopes: Is the Great Wall of China Visible from the Moon?
Get citation
Snopes: Is the Great Wall of China Visible from the Moon?. (n.d.). snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/great-wall-from-moon/
See more details
Wikipedia: Artificial structures visible from space
Reference article covering this claim directly
Get citation
Wikipedia: Artificial structures visible from space. (n.d.). en.wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_structures_visible_from_space
Reference article covering this claim directly
Get citation
Wikipedia: Great Wall of China. (n.d.). en.wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wall_of_China
Receipt History
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.
The verdict split
Recorded verdict fields across 22,048 receipts.
Supported 13,590 Contested 792 Refuted 2,142 Overstated 105 Contested partial 1,197 Common knowledge 1,158 Insufficient evidence 2 Partial lean 3,062
See the Trust Wiki View a random receipt
The extension lives where the arguments live.
The popup checks a claim. The Receipts tab keeps your history and searches the Trust Wiki. Add it from the Chrome Web Store. See how it works →
Earlier interface preview: in-page results. Deliberate right-click and shortcut checks use supported pages. Bro and Pro can enable the optional selection button after accepting the disclosure and browser page access. Selecting text alone sends no claim.
Earlier interface preview: the popup. Inspect recorded evidence for and against a claim, with citation controls for available sources.
Other tools do some things. Only trust me bro does it all.
| Feature | trust me. | GPTZero | Consensus | Zotero | Grammarly | Jenni |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retrieves potential evidence sources | ✓ | · | ✓ | · | · | · |
| Judges whether it supports the claim | ✓ | · | · | · | · | · |
| Shows the evidence against, too | ✓ | · | · | · | · | · |
| Verifies quotes word for word | ✓ | · | · | · | · | · |
| Catches retracted papers | ✓ | · | · | · | · | · |
| Formats the citation | ✓ | · | ✓ | ✓ | · | ✓ |
| Works on the page you are reading | ✓ | ✓ | · | · | ✓ | · |
| Hands you a shareable receipt | ✓ | · | · | · | · | · |
| Anyone can challenge the verdict | ✓ | · | · | · | · | · |
| Price | $9.99 /mo | $15/mo | $8.99/mo | free | $12/mo | $20/mo |
Competitor prices are their advertised individual plans, checked July 2026. We are not affiliated with any of them.
Taste it
Free
$0
MOST POPULAR
Win the argument
Bro
$9.99/mo
400 claim checks and 100 API calls a month, the highlight pill, and every citation format.
MOST POWERFUL
Build with receipts
Pro
$29.99/mo
1,000 claim checks and 1,000 API calls a month, plus the saved claim library.
Coming soon
Invite five friends, get a month of Pro.
When five people you invite subscribe to any paid plan, we hand you thirty days of Pro. It ends by itself and goes back to the plan you were on. No card, nothing to cancel.
Before you ask: fair questions.
What's the difference between a citation and a receipt?
A citation identifies a source using available bibliographic details. A receipt presents a recorded claim outcome, evidence and limitations. It does not guarantee a settled answer, a confidence score or support from every cited source.
Who is this actually for?
Someone mid-argument who knows they read it somewhere and needs the source in ten seconds. Paste a claim in the popup or use a deliberate page selection.
What does it work on?
Paste a claim in the extension popup, or deliberately check a selection on supported pages using right-click or your configured shortcut. Direct editing in Google Docs and other rich-text editors is not universally supported; use paste.
Can I use this inside my own product?
The Trust API accepts one claim per request and returns recorded result fields and available sources. Confidence may be unavailable, and checks may produce public receipts. Do not submit confidential or personal information. Read the API page for authentication, limits, current prices and response handling.
Is it free?
Five checks a month are free, receipts and share links included, no card. Bro is $9.99 a month for 400 checks and 100 API calls; Pro is $29.99 for 1,000 of each. Annual is twelve months for the price of ten.
Don't take our word for it. That's the whole point.
Coming soon
The homepage demo is not available. Browse existing receipts below.
Already on the record: 10 percent of our brains · the marshmallow test · power posing · the Great Wall from space
Create an account Add to Chrome or pull a random receipt →
Supported pagesChrome extensionPaste a claim APA · MLA · BibTeX · RISPublic receipt links
Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.