#factlink

[the-crystalized-cosmos]

Fact-Based Identity Server!

Pt: Fact-Based Identity Server! /End PT

As the day ends, an orange and red glow shines in the sky. This glow is comforting, warm, and beautiful to the eye. Let’s walk, shall we?

🌅 — Into The Sunset is a factual identity based server, focused on creating a comforting and inclusive space for all fact-based identities and experiences, including stereotypically 'scary' ones. We include a verification system as to keep away trolls and large amount of channels for you to discuss your experiences with factivity.

Though this server is specially made for those with fact-based identities, supporters are welcome as well.

We will be happy to see you in the sunset.

NOTE: Server is explicitly pro-endo!

[fact-anonymous]

what does facthearted and factlink mean

the -hearted suffix usually is used to mean that you relate to them, but are not them/don't identify as them. for example you may be mozart-hearted which means you relate to wolfgang amadeus mozart but don't feel like you are him.

the -link suffix is usually used for chosen identities, like otherlink and copinglink. it doesn't have to be used for coping, it can be used if you choose to be/identify as something/someone cause it makes you happy, more confident, more euphoric, or any other reason.

hope this explanation is clear enough, and if not, let us know and we'll try to rephrase it ^v^

mod espresso

[diaunthric]

I don't know what to post, Inbox me factkin shit

[problematicfactive]

This being said shout out to problematic factkins cause yall didnt chose this either. And factlinks bc. Something really bad must have happened to you for this to be how you turned out

A couple of trolls tried to join a server that I'm in and. It's really funny how people who are majorly anti problematic factives cant even tell us apart form kins. Lol you dont even know what you're talking about

[mariacallous]

Earlier this week, the day after Donald Trump’s 2024 U.S. presidential election win was formally certified by the Senate, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg made a headline-grabbing announcement. 

In a five-minute video posted on Meta’s social media platforms Facebook and Instagram, Zuckerberg announced changes to how those platforms would regulate content—primarily, that they would do less of it. 

Meta will “get rid of a bunch of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender” while also lowering the threshold for its automated systems to take down potentially harmful content, Zuckerberg said. Accompanying changes to Meta’s hateful conduct policies say that this includes allowing “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation.” 

Meta will also “get rid of fact-checkers” in the United States and replace them with a “community notes” system where users call out misinformation themselves—similar to the one deployed by Elon Musk on the website formerly known as Twitter, which he took over in 2022 and renamed X the following year. 

“It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram,” Zuckerberg said. 

The announcement appeared aimed at an audience of one: the incoming U.S. president. Zuckerberg decried “censorship” by governments and legacy media—seemingly referencing one of Trump’s most frequent complaints—and added that “the recent elections feel like a cultural tipping point toward once again prioritizing speech.”

Meta’s tendency to tweak its policies according to which party is in power in Washington is not strictly a new phenomenon, said Katie Harbath, a former public policy director for the company who led Facebook’s global election integrity efforts. “This seems to be a trend line for [Zuckerberg]; after the last three major elections now, he’s done major recalibrations of how the company approaches content,” Harbath, the founder and CEO of tech policy consultancy Anchor Change, told Foreign Policy. “At the end of the day, this isn’t about speech—this is about business.”

It is less clear what these policy changes mean for Meta’s 3 billion-plus users around the world, including in many countries where its platforms—such as Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp—are the primary avenues of information and communication online. For now, the fact-checking closures will only apply to the United States, and a company spokesperson declined to comment on whether it plans to widen them to the rest of its fact-checking partners around the world. 

But the announcement is deeply worrying to those fact-checkers as well as digital rights advocates and experts, who fear rampant harmful disinformation and possible chilling effects for vulnerable online populations around the world.

Meta’s global fact-checking program is extensive, comprising independent organizations in more than 100 countries and territories—including geopolitical hot spots such as Ukraine, Taiwan, and Palestine—as well as operating in more than 60 languages. Many of those fact-checkers are concerned that the cuts could soon come for them, particularly affecting those who rely on Meta’s funding and support. 

“Most of the fact-checking community was growing and making a living because of Meta’s third-party program, and most of us are small in size.” said Summer Chen, the former editor in chief of the Taiwan FactCheck Center, Meta’s first Taiwanese partner. Chen helmed the center for five years and worked closely with Meta and other global partners before leaving a year ago to start her own organization called FactLink. 

Chen specifically touted the collective efforts by Meta’s global coalition—convened by the Poynter Institute’s International Fact-Checking Network, or IFCN—to combat disinformation around the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war.

“We formed a global disinformation line of defense,” she said. Between X’s pullback from global content moderation investments since Musk took over the platform and Meta’s announcement this week, “that very precious global line of defense and the fact-checking community will face a challenge for survival,” she added. 

Lupa, an agency that serves as a Meta fact-checking partner in misinformation hot spot Brazil, expressed similar fears.

“We fear that Meta has taken a step in the wrong direction, driven by political alignment in the U.S. and the pursuit of even greater profits,” the organization said in a statement. “Retreats like this in initiatives against misinformation are dangerous and pose a risk to access to quality information based on facts, data, and scientific evidence.”

An open letter to Zuckerberg published by IFCN on Thursday—which has already been signed by dozens of global fact-checking organizations—warned of dire consequences if Meta’s partnerships around the globe are similarly canceled. “Some of these countries are highly vulnerable to misinformation that spurs political instability, election interference, mob violence and even genocide,” the letter said. “If Meta decides to stop the program worldwide, it is almost certain to result in real-world harm in many places.”

Larger partners also appeared outraged at Meta’s decision, including the French news agency Agence France-Presse (AFP), whose fact-checking arm is one of the biggest Meta partners.

“AFP was given 15 minutes warning ahead of Meta’s announcement that it planned to end its fact-checking project in the United States,” wrote Phil Chetwynd, the agency’s global news director, in a note on AFP’s internal website that was obtained by Foreign Policy. Chetwynd and an AFP spokesperson confirmed that the note is authentic. 

Meta had previously assured AFP in a formal letter that all of the agency’s fact-checking projects with Meta would continue until at least 2026, Chetwynd added, slamming Zuckerberg’s “highly-political and inaccurate statement equating fact-checking with censorship.” 

Chetwynd wrote that Meta has not yet clarified its plans for fact-checking projects outside the United States, adding that AFP management has a meeting with Meta in the coming days to discuss next steps. 

“The decision comes against a background of growing populist and authoritarian attacks on the media around the world and an explosion of misinformation and disinformation on platforms such as X, Tik Tok and Facebook,” Chetwynd wrote. “Media attempting to provide clearly-sourced and fact-driven independent journalism find themselves in the eye of the storm.”

Meta did not immediately respond to Foreign Policy’s request for comment on the note.

The past consequences of Meta’s misinformation missteps have been far broader and more harmful outside the West. Facebook acknowledged in 2018 that it had not been doing enough to prevent the platform from being used to foment ethnic violence in Myanmar, and it has been accused of fueling violence in several other countries, including Ethiopia, India, and Sri Lanka. 

While the loss of independent fact-checkers in those countries would be a major blow, experts and advocates are more worried about another part of Zuckerberg’s announcement: the pullback of restrictions on hateful content that will apply to all its global users.

“Those changes, in my view, are pretty disastrous,” said Kate Ruane, the director of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Democracy and Technology’s Free Expression Project. “I don’t think Meta can credibly claim that it’s protecting free speech while making changes to its policies that silence entire communities,” Ruane added.

The company has clashed with governments around the world on both sides of the free speech debate, with countries such as Turkey and India frequently demanding its platforms to take down content that those governments find objectionable, as part of a broader attempt to silence critics and curb free speech. 

Experts fear that authoritarian governments that are often purveyors of disinformation themselves and use social media laws to crack down on dissent could be emboldened by more lax speech policies from Meta.

“If I thought the cop was no longer on the beat, I would think that I could do a lot more of that,” Ruane said. 

Meta has also been subject to immense scrutiny in the European Union, whose Digital Services Act—enacted in 2023—imposes certain content moderation requirements on large platforms. An EU official told reporters in a briefing on Thursday that Meta’s fact-checking changes will not affect the EU but that its updated hate speech policies will, adding that the company has submitted two “critical impact risk assessments” that the EU continues to evaluate. 

In his Tuesday announcement, Zuckerberg dropped a big hint about how he would approach potential conflicts with governments around the world: by hitching his company more firmly to U.S. geopolitical clout.

“We’re going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more,” he said, specifically calling out Europe, China, and Latin America. “The only way that we can push back on this global trend is with the support of the U.S. government.” 

The Meta CEO also took a swipe at the Biden administration’s policies over the past four years, saying that it has itself indulged in censorship. “By going after us and other American companies, it has emboldened other governments to go even further,” he said. “But now we have the opportunity to restore free expression, and I am excited to take it.” 

(The White House did not immediately respond to Foreign Policy’s request for comment, but a spokesperson said in an August statement in response to similar accusations by Zuckerberg that “tech companies and other private actors should take into account the effects their actions have on the American people, while making independent choices about the information they present.”)

That could set up some complicated dynamics for Meta’s business around the world, said Harbath, the company’s former director of public policy for global elections. “We were kind of already on that path because of the different regulations that you were seeing in places,” she said. “Does this put that into even more stark contrast? Potentially, yes, but also I think it’s worth remembering with many other leaders around the globe also being more conservative or right-leaning … they may welcome that a bit more.” 

At the same time, Meta’s reliance on Trump for geopolitical air cover could backfire.

“I think that’s what they want to signal [to other countries],” Harbath said. “The question is: Will Trump actually stick by their side? Because Trump is going to do what’s best for Trump.”

[jacks-manidiary]

Although I'm certainly not factlink as I just do not have any connection to the streamer guy, I do relate to cc!Jack in part because he's closer to the life I lead now than the Minecraft cubes are. And some little aspects from him make me happy to pick up :]

[ama-factkin]

The Discord is Open For Business!

A number of people reached out and said they were interested! I’ll send out individual links but for now here’s a temporary invite!

https://discord.gg/HgZa8bvp

The server has a verification system, lots of roles, plenty of bots, and tons of fun channels!

It’s for anyone with a fact-based alterhuman identity, as well as anyone wanting to learn more about them!

I hope to see you there!

[nyctohyloph0bia]

I don't do that but I would like to fulfill the challenge.

Given that archetrope, otherhearted, hearthome, soulbonder and plural are off the table (since I saw them on your reblog, so that'd be cheating), I'll try this.

Alliumthrope/Alliumkind— someone who is/feels disconnected from their own humanity and feels closer connected to non humanity. You do not need to be nonhuman to be Alliumkind.

Constelic— An alterhuman identity, someone who collects identities. Idk if it counts as voluntary nonhumanity/fictionkinity, but, from my understanding you don't have to identify as. I believe I saw conversation about heartstelic once?

Aldernic— An umbrella term for people who have, or wish to have, a body that deviates from what is expected in society, or typical human notions in general. While not every aldernic person might consider themselves alterhuman, I find it very alterhuman -esque lol

Daemonism— A type of mental construct whose existence is dependent on a person’s conscious observations and mind, it can be anything from an animal, to a human. The concept was taken from the series His Dark Materials.

Archaeosapien— An individual whose alterhuman identity is intrinsically rooted in prehistory, antiquity or mythic accounts of history.

Factkin— Someone who identifies as an individual that exists or has existed (in other words, alive or dead) in the corporeal earth. This can include humans and animals alike. There is also adjacent identities, like Facthearted, Factlink. There is also Factive. I feel like Factual folk are due for a umbrella term pft.

And that's all I can come up with up the top of my head.

you there. person posting a "list of alterhuman terms" post in the community tags. name and define five alterhuman identities that ARE NOT nonhumanity or fictionkinity. if you try to use voluntary nonhumanity as one of these the dragon gets to eat you. you have five minutes.

[hazyaltcare]

Self-care for a cc! Technoblade with Minecraft and pig themes.

Baby Pig Plush - $17

Technoblade Sticker - $2.50

Soul Torch Power Bank - $19.99

Pig Face Mask - $15

USB Stick - $19.22+ $14.99+

Fidget Cube - $21.66

Gaming Mat - $7.50

Pig Coin Bank - $9.96

Mod Haze

[arco-pluris]

I have multiple fact kintypes: dead, living and unborn beings. But they are unknown to me, as far as I lived I couldn't figure it out at all, except factlinks and facthearted as possible findings. It's like our spirituality/brain is shared (like a sensate). Well, paradoxically, I already unironically factkinned a lot, but that counts as factkinshifts that hasn't so much importance.

Sure I'm omnikin of factkintypes too, but that's because I see everyone deriving from each other, but in different levels. I don't wanna quantify that, but they also have opposite kintypes (as like antigenders).

Here are examples of my paradox factkinnings: swiftkin (Taylor Swift), I sure am her when I'm saying things associated with her (note these associations are socialized and added from my non-extrapersonal views), many times I act opposed to these things, then I turn into antikinning here intrapersonally. This also happens with other kinities of mine, such as slothkin. You may say this is personality, but sure otherkinity is about extrapersonalities (extrapersonhoods/extrapeopling in the case) in my sensory experience.

Do you think you could help explain factkin to me? I'm trying to be more accepting but it seems like most 'kin don't really wanna talk about them except to say they're not real. I get that a lot too though (I'm fictionkin) so I want to try and understand my factkin siblings better.

Well, I’m not factkin myself, but I can try my best to explain. (Any factkin followers are welcome to chime in and correct me if I explain something wrong!)

Okay to, to simplify, someone who is factkin is someone who identifies as another human being, either alive or dead.

For those that have a kintype of a deceased person, I think that’s fairly simple? If one’s kintype is spiritual in nature, then its possible they are factkin due to something like reincarnation, walk-ins, etc. Its similar to those whose kintype is an earthly animal (if in a spiritual sense), just this time its another human being. 

Okay, so that leaves those who identify as living people. That might seem a bit weird at first, but from what I’ve heard from legitimate factkin, its similar to some fictionkin in that it comes from the multiverse theory. See, just because the person that is their kintype is living in our universe doesn’t mean that they haven’t passed on in other universes. So what these type of factkin say is that, yes, their soul is from a version of their kintype that has already passed on. It just so happens that that person is still alive in our universe.

I think a lot of the problem comes from how many trolls are using the term (and also its possible that the term itself was coined by a troll). And I think the criticism of identity theft also comes from people criticizing these trolls. That’s because you’ll see a lot of factkin-pretending trolls saying things like “I am literally pewdiepie, so I should be able to take over his channel” or some nonsense like that. Yes, if someone claims to be that person as they are in this universe and that it somehow grants them all the things that person has, that would probably be identity theft. But most of the legitimate factkin I’ve seen know that their current state is not that person, just like all legitimate kin know that about their kintype. 

This isn’t really a full explanation, but hopefully you can at least understand where they’re coming from. Sorry if I didn’t explain it too clearly!

[fact-anonymous]

It's okay if your fact-identity is a choice.

Being/having a factlink, fact-otherlink, or fact-copinglink is NOT identity theft.

It does NOT make you a bad person, to simply exist and shape your identity in a way you want to.

It does NOT make you "a bad example of alterhumanity", or "a shame to the factive/factkin/plural/etc. community".

You're NOT "misleading" anyone by being a factlink. You're not "giving outsiders the wrong impression", or "glorifying delusions".

You should NOT have to be disrespected, or told that you should have a fiction-link or identify as a factive instead. You can be who you want to be in the peace of your own mind and in the safe communities you foster/find. You can cope however you see fit, and others shouldn't judge what works and doesn't work for you.

You do NOT have to beat yourself up for wanting to be this way. And you are allowed to like, or even love, it!

-mod espresso

[diaunthric]

It sucks that there's no community primarily for us

[socialenterprisebootcamp]

Help mee en voeg 'facts' toe aan onze essays

Vanaf vandaag kun je ons helpen om onze essays nog scherper te krijgen dan ze al zijn. Je kunt namelijk vanaf nu eenvoudig stukken tekst uit de essays selecteren en er een zogenaamde ‘factlink’ aan toevoegen. Met die links geef je extra…

View Post

[peakreality]

> With Factlink you can select any statement on the web, review its credibility, and add what you know.

[fact-anonymous]

I just wanted to say thank you for explaining what facthearted and factlink mean, it made me realize that I’m both of those and it just made me really happy to have a term/label for my experience and that I’m not alone in how I feel

for new readers, anon is referencing this post:

anytime! and thank you so much for your kind message. we are really happy that you realized you were both factlink and facthearted! that's awesome! congratulations on your self/selves discovery ^7^

you're definitely not alone! knowing what labels feel right, and knowing your experience isn't solitary, can be really nice. we wish you identity comfort, euphoria, and a good timezone n_n

mod espresso

[fact-anonymous]

9 April 2023 Update

*dusts off the blog*

Well, well, well, look who's back!

Me. It's me.

I'd love to get this blog off and runnin' again, but life's a huge uphill battle right now, so I'll start off slow. It's lovely to see you all again, and welcome to the new followers! I hope this blog can help ya in your factive, factkin, factlink, etc. journey.

-Mod Silhouette

P.S.: At times where spambots gang up on the good non-spambots on tumblr, we will change our avatar from the default Tumblr one soon!