How we select stories
We prioritize subjects that help an English-speaking audience understand deception, fraud, public evidence, investigative limits, and practical safety. A case must offer more than shock value: it should reveal a documented pattern, clarify a public-interest question, or provide useful prevention and recovery context.
We avoid publishing thin pages built only around a name, allegation, or viral post. Public availability does not automatically make a detail relevant or ethical to republish.
Research and source review
Research begins with the strongest available primary and official material: court records, regulator notices, law-enforcement releases, government guidance, scientific standards, public datasets, original statements, and provider documentation. Reputable reporting may establish context or identify records that require direct review.
Material claims should remain traceable. Repetition across low-quality websites, social accounts, or automated summaries is not independent confirmation.
Facts, allegations and unresolved claims
Confirmed facts, attributed allegations, expert interpretation, editorial analysis, and unresolved theories are not interchangeable. Headlines and summaries must preserve those distinctions.
Arrest, charge, civil claim, investigation, acquittal, dismissal, and conviction describe different legal states. We use the most accurate current status and avoid language that implies guilt before a competent court has established it.
Review before publication
Before publication, the desk reviews names, dates, locations, quotations, numerical claims, legal status, official reporting channels, source links, image labels, and the relationship between the headline and supporting record. Sensitive allegations and safety instructions receive additional attention.
An article may remain unpublished when the record is too weak, the public value is unclear, or the risk of avoidable harm outweighs the information available.
Use of artificial intelligence
AI may assist with organization, transcription, accessibility, illustration, language refinement, and early-stage research support. It does not replace source verification, editorial judgment, or responsibility.
AI-assisted editorial illustrations are labeled and must not be presented as documentary images of a real victim, suspect, location, or event. Factual claims are checked against appropriate sources rather than accepted from an automated system.
Victim dignity and safety
We avoid graphic imagery, unnecessary personal details, doxxing, amateur confrontation, dehumanizing language, and framing that treats harm as a game. Coverage involving minors, intimate material, health information, or vulnerable people requires a clear public-interest reason.
Safety content should direct readers toward qualified services and official channels without promising prevention, recovery, diagnosis, or legal outcomes.
Conflicts and commercial independence
Advertising, affiliate arrangements, sponsorships, and partnerships do not determine factual conclusions. Relevant relationships must be disclosed where the recommendation appears. A provider cannot purchase a favorable review, suppress material criticism, or bypass editorial standards.
Product coverage should explain limitations, audience fit, alternatives, methodology, and the date of review.
Corrections and accountability
Substantive errors are corrected promptly and transparently. Material changes should carry a dated note in the article. Minor spelling or formatting improvements may be made without a correction notice when they do not change meaning.
See the complete Corrections Policy or contact lavi@truthtubefiles.com.