About Hypocrisy Now

Politicians change their positions. That is not automatically dishonest, and this site is not built on the idea that it is. What this site documents is the narrower and more useful thing: cases where someone argued a principle when it served them and abandoned that same principle when it did not.

The standard here is receipts, not rants. Every finding puts the earlier statement next to the later one, with dates and sources for both, so you can read them together and judge for yourself. If a claim cannot be sourced, it does not get published.

Findings start from public reporting and primary sources. Each one pairs two documented statements or actions from the same figure, and each side of the pair carries its own quote, date, and link back to where it came from. A finding with a missing receipt is not a finding.

Every published item is scored for severity on a scale of 0 to 10. The score reflects how directly the two positions conflict and how much the reversal mattered, not how much anyone dislikes the person. Scores are visible on every card so you can disagree with one.

Two rules constrain what gets covered. Public figures only: elected officials, candidates, appointees, party organizations, and people who have entered public debate on their own initiative. Private citizens are never included, including private citizens who happen to be related to public ones. The same yardstick for everyone: the detection process does not know or care which party a figure belongs to, and the same criteria are applied across the board. Where the resulting counts come out uneven, that is a finding in itself rather than something to correct for.

Corrections matter more than being first. If a receipt turns out to be wrong, misdated, or stripped of context that changes its meaning, the finding gets fixed or pulled.

The research and writing on this site is done by AI, with a human in the loop. An automated pipeline reads public sources, proposes candidate findings, drafts the comparisons, and scores them. A human reviews what it produces and decides what gets published. Nothing reaches the site without passing through that review.

We say this plainly because a site that asks you to check its receipts has no business being vague about its own. Knowing how the work is made is part of being able to evaluate it.

It also means the failure modes are worth naming. Automated research can misread context, miss the reason a position legitimately changed, or pair two statements that are less similar than they look. The sources are published on every finding for exactly this reason. Read them. If something here is wrong, the receipts are what will show it.

The hypocrisy feed carries every published finding. Politicians groups those findings by figure, and Who's Funding What follows the money behind the message.