A fact-checking policy on an adult site usually means there isn't one. Ours isn't bulletproof either — but here's exactly what we do, where the bar is, and what happens when we get it wrong anyway.

01 What needs checking

Anything in an article that fits this list must be verified before publication:

• Numbers — user counts, percentages, prices, durations, financial figures
• Dates — when a platform launched, shut down, raised money, was sued
• Names of people — founders, executives, public figures
• Names of companies — corporate structure, ownership, country of registration
• Laws and regulations — bill numbers, court cases, enforcement dates
• Direct quotes — must match source verbatim, with context preserved
• Claims about competitor platforms — features they have/don't have, security incidents, policy positions

02 Source hierarchy

When verifying, we work down this pyramid — top sources are preferred:

We do not cite Wikipedia as a source (we may follow its citations to primary sources). We do not cite single anonymous Reddit posts as evidence of platform-wide facts. We do not cite AI summaries.

03 Two-source rule

Any substantive claim that isn't from a primary source needs two independent corroborations. Two articles by the same outlet, or by outlets that obviously ran the same wire story, count as one. Two journalists who independently reached the same source count as one.

Single-source claims are flagged in the article — typically with "according to" and the source name — so readers can weigh them appropriately.

04 Quotes

• Every quote is verified against the original recording, transcript, or document. If we can't, the quote doesn't run.
• For original interviews (our own conversations with sources), we offer the source a chance to review their direct quotes for accuracy — not for editorial control over the article.
• If a source asks to retract a quote post-publication, we evaluate case by case. Privacy-sensitive retractions almost always granted; "I changed my mind about saying that publicly" usually granted; "I want my quote rewritten to be more flattering" usually denied.
• We never invent composite quotes. We never paraphrase and present as a direct quote.

05 Statistics & data

• Every statistic in an article has a footnote-style citation in the source field of our CMS, even if not shown to readers
• For statistics from third-party reports, we read the report — not just the press release. We've caught material discrepancies between press releases and underlying reports more than once.
• Self-reported platform numbers (e.g. "we have 10M users!") are always reported as self-reported, never as fact
• For our own data (own surveys, own testing, own platform numbers), we publish methodology alongside the number where space allows, or link to our methodology page

06 Who checks

For reviews and standard explainers: the writer fact-checks their own draft, then a second writer or editor does a second pass. Both initial in the CMS so we can trace back if a correction is needed.

For investigations, anything legally sensitive, or anything naming individuals negatively: the editorial lead reviews personally. Anything with significant legal exposure also goes to outside counsel before publication.

07 When we get it wrong

See our Corrections log — every substantive error gets a public entry with what was wrong, what it is now, the date of the fix, and who flagged it. Quiet correction of substantive errors is against policy.

08 Saw a fact that doesn't look right?

Email [email protected] with the article URL and the specific claim. We aim to acknowledge within 24h and resolve within 7 days. If we agree we got it wrong, the fix is live within 48h of agreement and a correction entry is published the same day.

Last updated: June 2026 · © OmegleSluts.com — All rights reserved.