Last Updated on the 15th of October, 2026.
Postdigitalist is a bilingual publication about technology, business, and the people building them. We bring practitioner experience and independent analysis to readers across Latin America, Spain, and the English-speaking world.
Our readers should be able to understand where our information comes from, how we reach our conclusions, and which relationships might influence our work. These standards apply to our articles, interviews, newsletters, research reports, and commissioned contributions in both languages.
Accuracy and evidence
We verify factual claims before publication and link to the evidence behind consequential assertions. Wherever possible, we use original documents, datasets, research, public records, and firsthand interviews. When another publication breaks a story or develops an idea we build on, we credit it directly.
We distinguish established facts from company claims, estimates, allegations, interpretation, and forecasts. A press release establishes what a company says; it does not, by itself, establish that the claim is true. When we cannot independently verify a material claim, we say so or leave it out.
Headlines, previews, charts, and social posts must accurately represent the underlying work. We include the context needed to interpret numbers, including dates, geography, sample limitations, and methodology where relevant. We do not present correlation as proof of causation or a small experiment as a universal finding.
Analysis and practitioner perspectives
We publish arguments and informed judgments. Authors may take a position, but they must show the reasoning and evidence behind it, acknowledge material uncertainty, and consider credible alternative explanations.
Firsthand experience is valuable, but one person’s experience is not automatically representative of an industry. Contributors should distinguish what they personally observed from what they infer, and explain the limits of the examples they use.
Forecasts are identified as forecasts. Where practical, we state the relevant timeframe, assumptions, and developments that would change our assessment. We do not manufacture balance between well-supported findings and unsupported assertions.
Sources, interviews, and attribution
We identify sources by name and relevant role whenever possible. We may grant anonymity when information is important and identification would expose a source to a credible risk. In those cases, an editor must know the source’s identity, assess their access and motives, and explain the reason for anonymity to readers without compromising their protection. Serious allegations require corroboration beyond an anonymous source’s assertion.
Interview ground rules, including confidentiality and any agreement to speak off the record, must be established before the information is shared. We do not invent quotations, sources, interviews, or firsthand experience.
We may edit interviews for length and clarity without changing their meaning, and disclose when we do so. Translated quotations must preserve meaning and tone. Paraphrases must not appear as direct quotations.
Sources may be asked to check technical details or the accuracy of their own quotations. They do not receive approval rights over independent editorial coverage. Before publishing serious criticism or allegations about an identifiable person or organization, we make a reasonable effort to seek their response, allow time proportionate to the circumstances, and fairly represent any substantive reply.
Editorial independence and commercial relationships
Postdigitalist operates a publication alongside a studio and may earn revenue through sponsorships, advertising, commissioned content, and services. Those relationships create potential conflicts that must be managed openly.
Editors retain responsibility for independent editorial decisions. Payment does not buy favorable independent coverage, protection from criticism, or the removal of accurate reporting. We do not sell undisclosed editorial mentions or links.
A sponsor’s advertising placement does not mean it commissioned, reviewed, or endorsed the surrounding article. We distinguish support for the publication from payment for a specific piece of content.
When we independently cover a current sponsor or studio client in a substantive way, we disclose that relationship in the article. Relevant past relationships are disclosed when they could reasonably affect a reader’s assessment of the coverage.
Commercial category exclusivity applies to advertising arrangements; it does not prevent independent coverage of competitors.
Sponsored content and research
Paid content carries a clear label near the beginning, identifying the paying organization and explaining its role. Labels must remain clear in both languages and wherever the content is distributed.
We use the following distinctions:
- Advertisement: A paid promotional placement, visually separated from editorial content.
- Sponsored content: An article, interview, or other piece commissioned or developed as part of a commercial agreement. We identify the sponsor and disclose any role in selecting the subject, supplying material, or reviewing the content.
- Research supported by [organization]: A report funded by an organization. The report explains who designed the research, supplied or analyzed the data, and reviewed it. If the funder controls the conclusions or final approval, we identify the work as sponsored content rather than independent research.
We retain the right to reject misleading claims and require corrections in paid work. A sponsor may review commissioned material for agreed factual, technical, or brand requirements, but cannot require fabricated evidence or conceal its involvement.
Research reports disclose material methodological limitations and funding relationships. Access to a downloadable report does not, by itself, imply permission for sponsor marketing. Any sharing of reader details must be clearly explained at collection and based on the reader’s explicit choice.
Contributor conflicts of interest
Contributors must tell the editor about relationships relevant to their subject, including employment, consulting, investments, advisory roles, close personal relationships, and paid advocacy. Relevant affiliations appear in the article or author biography; a material conflict requires an article-level disclosure.
We do not accept payment, gifts, or favors in exchange for editorial treatment. Relevant travel support, product access, or other material benefits must be disclosed. Review access does not guarantee coverage or a positive assessment.
An author’s availability for consulting, including through a “Hire the author” link, is a commercial offer. Publication is not an endorsement of those services or a guarantee of results. Contributors may not use an article to conceal a sales pitch or disclose confidential client information without authorization.
When a conflict compromises our ability to assess a story fairly, we assign another editor or contributor, narrow the coverage, or decline it. If a conflict involves the editor responsible for publication, another qualified reviewer must assess the piece before it runs; if suitable review is unavailable, we hold it.
Use of artificial intelligence
We may use AI tools to assist with research, transcription, translation, data processing, outlining, and drafting. A human editor remains responsible for every published piece, including its accuracy, originality, sourcing, and judgment.
AI output is not a source. We verify claims and references against the underlying material and check quotations against recordings, transcripts, or original documents. We do not publish invented citations, synthetic interviews presented as real, or generated accounts of experiences that did not happen.
When AI materially contributes to the published wording, analysis, code, or visuals, we include a brief disclosure explaining its role and the human review performed. Routine spelling checks, formatting, and transcription assistance do not require a separate disclosure. AI-assisted translations receive human review for meaning and accuracy.
Generated or materially manipulated images must be labeled where readers could mistake them for documentary evidence. We do not upload confidential source material, unpublished client information, or sensitive personal data to AI services without authorization and appropriate safeguards.
Originality and intellectual property
Our work must make an original contribution through reporting, experience, synthesis, or analysis. Rephrasing another article does not make it original reporting. We credit the reporting and ideas we rely on, clearly mark quotations, and obtain permission for material where required.
Charts, photographs, illustrations, and other assets must have a documented source and a valid basis for use. Data visualizations must represent their underlying data faithfully. Contributors must disclose prior publication and any restrictions on republication.
Language, translation, and respectful treatment
Our Spanish and English editions follow the same evidentiary standards. Translations may adapt expressions and context for their audience, but must preserve the substance of claims, quotations, disclosures, and uncertainty. We identify substantive adaptations when they change the scope or argument of a piece.
Our voice can be direct, distinctive, and critical. Humor and strong language must serve the argument. We avoid personal abuse, discriminatory language, and sensationalism that distorts the evidence.
We publish personal information only when it is necessary to the story and justified by the public interest. Particular care is required with minors, vulnerable people, and individuals facing harassment. Anonymizing an example must also remove details that could identify the person indirectly.
Corrections, updates, and complaints
We correct material errors promptly after verification. A correction note explains what was wrong, what changed, and when. We do not silently rewrite a consequential factual mistake, including one in a headline or chart. Minor spelling, grammar, and formatting fixes may be made without a note.
Updates that incorporate new information are distinguished from corrections. When an error affects both language editions, we correct both and review related newsletters or social posts. If the central premise of an article cannot be supported, we retract it with an explanation. When a page must be removed, we leave a public notice where feasible, unless doing so would create further harm or breach confidentiality.
Readers and subjects of coverage may request a correction or raise a concern by contacting editorial[at]post-email.com, with the article URL, the disputed passage, and any supporting evidence. The editor reviews the concern and communicates the outcome. Complaints involving that editor are referred to another qualified reviewer. Disagreement with an article’s conclusion is not, on its own, grounds for removal.
Accountability
The editor responsible for publication is accountable for applying these standards. Contributors receive them before assignment, and commercial partners are told about the provisions relevant to their agreements. Editorial exceptions require a documented reason and must never conceal payment, fabricate evidence, or mislead readers.
We review this policy as our publication and practices evolve. Material changes are recorded below.