Questions people ask before using LogicLens.

Yes — it began as a reasoning checker, and that's one of the features that makes it different and most comprehensive. Fact checking asks whether a claim is true; reasoning checking asks how claims are arranged to persuade you, which matters even when every fact is accurate. The browser extension and the iPhone app do both, in one analysis. The Analyze Text page on this site does not: it checks reasoning only, and there are no plans to add fact checking to it. Almost everything LogicLens can do lives in the extension and the iPhone app, not on this site — if you want fact checking, source checking, YouTube checking, or highlights on the page you are actually reading, use one of those.

Source Check goes further again: it looks at whether a cited source actually supports the claim made about it — the gap most fact checks never reach — and arrives with the latest browser extension update. All of it is built to abstain rather than guess: when there isn't enough evidence to settle something, it says so instead of reaching for a verdict, and it never labels opinion, satire, or prediction as false.

Yes. LogicLens takes user privacy seriously. The product is designed to request only the data needed to make the extension and web app work, and we follow Chrome Web Store policies, applicable privacy laws, and strict data-handling standards.

We do not want a product that quietly collects more than it needs. In many cases, collecting or using personal data beyond disclosed, necessary product purposes would violate platform rules or privacy law anyway. More importantly, it would violate the point of LogicLens.

No. LogicLens is a second set of eyes, not a final authority. It's like having a wise philosopher on speed dial as you browse.

The algorithm feeds off our emotions; LogicLens decreases that manipulation by providing a 24/7, rules-based, stubbornly apolitical lens on the information tsunami we all navigate every day.

This is a complex question. The short answer is that LogicLens is built from human language and human judgment, but it operates inside systems designed to maximize objectivity. Logic, rhetorical analysis, verifiability, and principles borrowed from analytical methods like the scientific method can make the analysis far less biased than ordinary human interpretation.

LogicLens is not biased in the way most people use the word: favoring a political party, tribe, or ideology. Its bias is toward neutral rhetorical analysis and truth-seeking. We are also incentivized to keep it that way. If LogicLens becomes obviously partial or sloppy, it loses its reason to exist.

LogicLens does not claim to eliminate bias. That is arguably impossible. Instead, it highlights potential signs of bias by looking for non-partisan patterns such as loaded language, logical fallacies, rhetorical devices, missing context, and many other categories. Those signals can indicate bias because they are often used to advance a point of view, but they are not a verdict by themselves.

We maximize neutrality through apolitical, rules-based analysis, by minimizing subjective evaluation where possible, and by being transparent about how the analysis works. The Objectivity feature also labels whether an insight is objective or verifiable versus a matter of interpretation you can reasonably disagree with.

So LogicLens is not a tool that floats above human language with perfect objectivity. It is a tool built on the best systems humans have for pursuing truth: logic, text analysis, rhetorical analysis, and the distinction between what can be verified and what remains interpretive.