Corrections Policy
Tech Feed Watch publishes articles that answer questions people search for, drafted by a language model with other people’s videos as research material, and most of that drafting is automated. Automation makes mistakes at a steady rate, so a policy for handling them is not a formality here — it is part of how the site works.
How to report something
Email [email protected] or message @JacobStubbeJS on X. Include the article link and what is wrong. You do not need to be polite about it.
I read everything sent to that address. If you are the creator of a video covered here and you want a change or a removal, say so and it is done — see below.
What happens next
Factual errors. If an article states something that is not true, I correct it. Where the error changed the meaning of the piece, the article carries a note saying what was wrong and when it was fixed. Silent edits to substantive claims are not acceptable, because a reader who saw the original deserves to know it changed.
Misrepresenting a video. Every article here draws on someone else’s work, so getting their argument wrong is the failure that matters most. If a creator says an article misrepresents their video, I take that at face value rather than arguing about it. The article is corrected or removed, at their preference.
Removal requests from creators. If you made a video and you do not want an article about it on this site, email me and it comes down. No explanation needed. Articles are also removed automatically when the source video is deleted or made private.
Typos and broken links. Fixed without a note.
How fast
I aim to respond within a few days. This is a one-person site, so I am not going to promise a same-day turnaround I cannot keep. Anything involving a creator’s own video is dealt with first.
When the fix is not in the article
Because articles are drafted by an automated system, a mistake is often a symptom rather than a one-off. When a report points at something the system does — a citation style that misleads, a claim it should not be making, a category of source it should not be using — the fix goes into the system, not just into the one article. That takes longer than editing a page, and it is the only version of fixing it that actually works.
Two real examples: articles once displayed invented engagement figures, and the structured data once credited this site as the creator of videos it had only summarised. Both were faults in the system, and both were corrected there.
What this site does not claim
It does not claim original reporting. It does not claim to have interviewed anyone. It does not claim that its articles replace the source video — every article links to it, and watching it is the better option if you want the full picture.
Where the site publishes numbers derived from its own archive, the method and its limits are stated on the same page as the number.
This policy is maintained by Jacob S. Olsen, Denmark. Last reviewed August 2026.