The Ethics of "Project Harpoon"

Recommended Videos

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
So 4chan started a reactionary movement called "Project Harpoon". This was a response to photoshopped images of female video game characters, designed to have the proportions of the average American female (ie. overweight). The response was a campaign to photoshop overweight people who used social media, whether they were professional or amateur models, or even members of the public who had the audacity to post a selfie to Facebook or Twitter.

The project's Facebook and Instagram pages were taken down after numerous reports, and as usual they've cried censorship. While the original set of images, as well as similar fat-advocacy campaigns are tasteless and insulting, I believe "Project Harpoon" have fought fire with napalm here. I don't even believe that fat-shaming is the issue, but rather an invasion of people's privacy. As much as "Project Harpoon" claim to want to advocate "healthiness", they were clearly seeking to provoke.

When an anti-SJW page I followed posted about it, I expressed my thoughts about the invasion of privacy. The responses I got were... troubling. I was called an SJW and a shill of course, but what bothered me was how privacy wasn't an issue with anyone. In fact, I was told that "if you don't want your photos edited, don't post your photos on the internet". Actually, the responses to many news articles about the page expressed a complete lack of concern for privacy.

How did I find out about the page? A friend of mine had a photo of hers edited and posted on the page. She was absolutely humiliated, and I filed my own report against the page because of that. According to Facebook's own community standards, the page was unacceptable (because it featured altered images of private individuals).

So what do you think? Did "Project Harpoon" have the right to do what they did? Was it a valid response to fat-positive feminist campaigns?
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
LeathermanKick25 said:
Well the argument "don't post your photos online if you want privacy" is kinda a solid arguement. Once you're out there online it's not that easy to keep it entirely private for all. There's concern for privacy, then there's the reality of privacy on the internet.
Sure, but can you really defend the people that invade people's private social media accounts to do these things without their consent? The "don't post your photos online if you want privacy" argument is essentially the same as "don't get drunk if you don't want to be sexually assaulted" or "don't cross the road if you don't want to be hit by a car". Almost everyone that uses Facebook or Twitter will post pictures of themselves, why should they be expected to grow thicker skin or refrain from sharing such images just because there's a chance some troll from 4chan will humiliate them?

People should know the dangers of the internet, yes. But that doesn't mean that people like those behind Project Harpoon are free to do as they please without consequences.
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
LeathermanKick25 said:
I never said they should be free to do as they please. That doesn't mean they will face consequences and it's silly to think that they will. Also your comparisons are just...laughable and are not in any way the same thing. You're comparing rape to having photos online edited.
I should make it clear that I'm not saying humiliating edited photos are on par with rape. Rather, it's comparable because of victim blaming. "If you don't want people to do (bad thing X), don't do (completely acceptable thing Y)".
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
DizzyChuggernaut said:
Did "Project Harpoon" have the right to do what they did? Was it a valid response to fat-positive feminist campaigns?
Yes to the first, and no to the second (not sure how strong the connection between fat-positive and feminism is anyway).

I have the right, as a response anything anyone says about anything, to loudly declare that I'm an annoying tosser. It's not a useful thing for me to do, and I shouldn't be surprised if people think I'm an annoying tosser, however.

It's 4chan being stereotypically 4chan, I don't think we need spend too much time wondering if this is a good way to behave.
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Yes to the first, and no to the second (not sure how strong the connection between fat-positive and feminism is anyway).
Well fat-positivity is a major component of modern feminism, in addition to that the original "mission statement" of Project Harpoon erroneously attributed the original clickbaity "female video game characters with average US proportions" to... well, pretty much any plus-sized Tumblr user. The implication being that "those damn Tumblr feminists" were responsible. During my interactions with them it became immediately apparent that they have an almost conspiracy theory level of paranoia when it comes to feminism.

As for the former point, I think that they may have the right to do what they do (though I'm not sure that "fair use" extends to members of the public) but they certainly don't have the right to break Facebook or Instagram's terms of service.
 

The Lunatic

Princess
Jun 3, 2010
2,291
0
0
Stuff like this technically falls under the "Parody" clause of "Fair Use".

As such, when you upload your images to websites such as Facebook or whatever, you enter into a contract with these organizations which outlines what your images may or may not be used for. These rights have to abide by copy right laws, and one of those laws is the right to "Fair Use".

Now, it could be argued that it is not "Fair use" is not being followed if the photos are used maliciously, but, instead it seems they're being used to mock a movement or organization rather than individuals.

So, to surmise, photos you upload to Facebook aren't owned by you, regardless of how personal you feel about them, and people technically have a right to use them for stuff. Be careful what you upload. However, by all accounts, no site is required to host the content, so, it being removed isn't really censorship, though it is a little bit of a double standard.

However, just because you -can- do something does not mean you -should- do something. Was it morally wrong to take people's photos? Yeah, probably.

Was it morally wrong to take model's photos, who are notable for promoting unhealthy life styles and editing them? I don't really think so.

Ultimately, if you're using your body to show off your political opinions (Or allowing an organization to do so!), you shouldn't be surprised if people do so too.

I can't help but find the whole thing a bit humorous. So, perhaps it's the appropriate reason for me, but, not really for others.
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
The Lunatic said:
Stuff like this technically falls under the "Parody" clause of "Fair Use".

As such, when you upload your images to websites such as Facebook or whatever, you enter into a contract with these organizations which outlines what your images may or may not be used for. These rights have to abide by copy right laws, and one of those laws is the right to "Fair Use".
Where is the line between fair use and privacy, I wonder? Facebook did outline what those images could be used for by the way (which is why Project Harpoon was shut down).

Now, it could be argued that it is not "Fair use" is not being followed if the photos are used maliciously, but, instead it seems they're being used to mock a movement or organization rather than individuals.
This begs the question, why did they come to the conclusion that "one clickbait article = any plus-sized person on social media"? The response was an ad hominem. Instead of making their point by, for example, photoshopping fictional characters to look thin (which would be an equal response), they decided to make it personal. They didn't even decide to make it personal against those who made the original images, but against anyone that had the nerve to both have photos taken of themselves and be overweight. I'm as critical of the fat acceptance movement as many of these people claim to be, but they're not making a point.

However, by all accounts, no site is required to host the content, so, it being removed isn't really censorship, though it is a little bit of a double standard.
How so? If it goes against the terms and agreements, they have the right to remove it. The true double standards are coming from Project Harpoon, who think that fictional characters and the general public can be equated.

Was it morally wrong to take model's photos, who are notable for promoting unhealthy life styles and editing them? I don't really think so.

Ultimately, if you're using your body to show off your political opinions (Or allowing an organization to do so!), you shouldn't be surprised if people do so too.
While I do think that the normalisation of obesity is troubling (because like it or not, it does correlate with the rise in fast food consumption), I don't think a model "promotes" any lifestyle just by... existing. In fact, I believe this attitude to be the same as those that cry about video game characters for being too thin, because they "promote" anorexia (or whatever). I'm thin, I don't promote eating disorders just by existing, and neither to plus-sized models. Why are they necessarily making a statement? They could just enjoy modelling?
 

The Lunatic

Princess
Jun 3, 2010
2,291
0
0
DizzyChuggernaut said:
Where is the line between fair use and privacy, I wonder? Facebook did outline what those images could be used for by the way (which is why Project Harpoon was shut down).
Well, when you upload anything to facebook, you pretty much waive away any right to privacy. Certainly, you have a site policy that says you do, but, as far as I'm aware, you don't really have an legal rights to privacy. You don't own the things you upload to Facebook, so, yeah. This is purely talking about the legal sense. By all accounts, Facebook has a right to remove your images for including too many green pixels.

So, you are right, and I do agree that ethically it is wrong to use random people's pictures for the purposes of mockery and would say it's a moral breath of privacy, even if not a legal one.

This begs the question, why did they come to the conclusion that "one clickbait article = any plus-sized person on social media"? The response was an ad hominem. Instead of making their point by, for example, photoshopping fictional characters to look thin (which would be an equal response), they decided to make it personal. They didn't even decide to make it personal against those who made the original images, but against anyone that had the nerve to both have photos taken of themselves and be overweight. I'm as critical of the fat acceptance movement as many of these people claim to be, but they're not making a point.
Is it a response to that article directly? To me it just seems more like a general response to the fat-positive movement inspired by the "One Clickbait article". You're right there's definitely better ways of doing it, and it's certainly not the sharpest point, but, I'm not really in any position to critique such things!

How so? If it goes against the terms and agreements, they have the right to remove it. The true double standards are coming from Project Harpoon, who think that fictional characters and the general public can be equated.
I guess it depends how you see the images in the first place. I don't approve of the random people's images being posted, so, I'm talking specifically about activists using facebook as a platform to espouse their opinion on lifestyles. And if one accepts that a model using her body as a political message is just that, then it's a double standard to say that others can't do that too.

While I do think that the normalisation of obesity is troubling (because like it or not, it does correlate with the rise in fast food consumption), I don't think a model "promotes" any lifestyle just by... existing. In fact, I believe this attitude to be the same as those that cry about video game characters for being too thin, because they "promote" anorexia (or whatever). I'm thin, I don't promote eating disorders just by existing, and neither to plus-sized models. Why are they necessarily making a statement? They could just enjoy modelling?
Well, I'm looking at the google results, and I see... Tess Holliday who's an activist who believes her morbid obesity is healthy and attractive, and is known on Facebook and instagram for posting images of her self and her "Activism". Meghan Trainor, a celebrity who sung a song about being fat, or something... And so on, I don't recognize most of these people, so, I can't really claim too much about them, being random or not.

I think if you're going to use "Activists" of being fat as a source of parody that's kinda fair game. But, I don't agree with using random people, no.

However, utlimately, we're talking about 4chan here. 4chan has rarely been about making points, more about making trouble.

Also, I'm only now realising the irony of the title "Fat activist".
 

Mikeybb

Nunc est Durandum
Aug 19, 2014
862
0
0
DizzyChuggernaut said:
*snipped for space*
So what do you think? Did "Project Harpoon" have the right to do what they did? Was it a valid response to fat-positive feminist campaigns?
In my opinion a photo used for promotional purposes, be it a person, character or cause is a valid subject to be altered.
It may not necessarily be kind or right to do so however, but if it has been put out there in such a way, then it is open to parody.
One posted by a member of the public for sharing among their social circle is not.

In this specific circumstance it jars with the intent of the 'operation' which more logically should entail altering promotional materials, characters and models in the inverse way that the mocked target does.

Using a member of the public's image this way slips over the line of near the cuff parody and into cruelty.

I am undecided on where cosplay images would sit on this spectrum as some cosplayers are enthusiasts, fans of a character and do what they do to share amongst friends, whereas others are genuinely professionals in their work reaching a level of dedication that could almost be considered model like.

Due to the difficulty of categorizing such images, I'd think the safer option would be to utilize none of them.

All of this is, of course, just opinion on what would make it as tolerable a campaign to me.
Also, it is based on the idea that the core intent of the operation is parody and not cruelty.
In the former, there's always room for parody even if it's cheekily poking fun at a mostly harmless cause.
In the latter, then it's not something that would make me smile at all, though curiously I think it would strengthen the case of the original cause for some who otherwise would have been ambivalent.

On a side note, I'm inclined to think if the purpose of this was truly to show the benefit of healthiness portrayed, then the method would have been more about showing the health dangers of maintaining such a weight with the characters the original group altered rather than showing aesthetically pleasing versions of other weighty characters.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
13,054
6,748
118
Country
United Kingdom
DizzyChuggernaut said:
So what do you think? Did "Project Harpoon" have the right to do what they did? Was it a valid response to fat-positive feminist campaigns?
No, and no, I'd say. An(other) instance of thinly-veiled provocation, dressed up as a social statement. Vacuous, cruel, indicating little more than an obsession with triviality on behalf of the photoshoppers.

They may have the legal right, I don't know, but then Facebook have the legal right to take it down, and I'm glad they do so.
 

Queen Michael

has read 4,010 manga books
Jun 9, 2009
10,400
0
0
Main problem here is, what counts as a fat activist?

First there's the clear cases. The people who insist that any medical professionals saying that fatness is unhealthy are just part of a conspiracy. The wackos.

But then there's people who just don't want to get bullied for their weight. That's the problem here--you're labeled a "fat activist" if you're fat and like your looks. Your only options are disliking your looks or being called a fat activist. You post a photo of yourself on Facebook? That means you're "promoting obesity." Ridiculous, of course.

"But being fat isn't good for you!" So? Nobody denied that. Apart from a few extremists--like you get in any movement--most fat activists wouldn't have had a problem in the first place if we focused on the health aspects. The problem is that when fat people don't bother to excercise and eat healthy--which they have no obligation to anybody to do--they get told they're ugly.

Imagine if it was like this with illiteracy. We'd constantly say that illiterate people are ugly and unattractive, and if somebody said that was bad we'd just go "Stop promoting illiteracy!"

Look, fat activists aren't saying that you should try to be fat. What they're saying is that people who are fat aren't automatically ugly. And that you shouldn't get harassed for your weight.

Once again: If people had actually kept it to health issues we wouldn't have had a problem in the first place. But it seems like 9 out of 10 comments on fat people are about them being ugly, which has nothing to do with health issues.

On-topic, I'd say this isn't an okay thing to do. Don't manipulate pictures of strangers and make them public. That's kind of obvious. And come on... "Prject Harpoon?" Whaling reference when you're talking about fat people. Tasteful, guys.
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
Silvanus said:
No, and no, I'd say. An(other) instance of thinly-veiled provocation, dressed up as a social statement. Vacuous, cruel, indicating little more than an obsession with triviality on behalf of the photoshoppers.

They may have the legal right, I don't know, but then Facebook have the legal right to take it down, and I'm glad they do so.
I actually found the insincere "clarifications" that it was promoting healthy lifestyles and was showing fat people their "true potential" to be the most infuriating aspect of this. Beyond the fact that ridicule and harassment do nothing to motivate people to lose weight, I actually got the feeling that this clumsy façade was intentionally paper-thin just to get under people's skin a little bit more. I am pretty sure that they'd rather give the fat-acceptance movement more ammunition against them than make any meaningful statement just so they can perpetuate the cycle of trolling.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
You have no expectations of privacy in a public environment. You also shouldn't be crying 'harassment' if you had to search out people being mean about you. If these guys were sending their shoops to the people involved, I think that would cross lines. If it's just about people that are upset someone dare mock them, then get over yourselves.
 

Queen Michael

has read 4,010 manga books
Jun 9, 2009
10,400
0
0
SecondPrize said:
You have no expectations of privacy in a public environment. You also shouldn't be crying 'harassment' if you had to search out people being mean about you. If these guys were sending their shoops to the people involved, I think that would cross lines. If it's just about people that are upset someone dare mock them, then get over yourselves.
This, I can agree with. It's like the difference between telling somebody she's an ugly cow and telling your friend, in private, that this fat girl you saw was ugly.

On a sidenote, I've always wondered what people expect fat models to do. Clothing companies need models to show off their clothing, right? And A model has to show confidence in her looks, right?
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
The Lunatic said:
Stuff like this technically falls under the "Parody" clause of "Fair Use".

As such, when you upload your images to websites such as Facebook or whatever, you enter into a contract with these organizations which outlines what your images may or may not be used for. These rights have to abide by copy right laws, and one of those laws is the right to "Fair Use".

Now, it could be argued that it is not "Fair use" is not being followed if the photos are used maliciously, but, instead it seems they're being used to mock a movement or organization rather than individuals.

So, to surmise, photos you upload to Facebook aren't owned by you, regardless of how personal you feel about them, and people technically have a right to use them for stuff. Be careful what you upload. However, by all accounts, no site is required to host the content, so, it being removed isn't really censorship, though it is a little bit of a double standard.
Oh, no no, no, no!

People might act like that's true, but it's blatantly false.

To begin with, copyright is innate. So anything a person makes is copyrighted by default.
Secondly, the Terms of Service for Facebook (and pretty much any similar site) don't negate your ownership. That is complete and utter paranoid and or delusional nonsense.

What these sites do, is effectively to give them a non-exclusive perpetual right to use your work any way they see fit.

Note it gives facebook that right (in this example) not every random stranger and person that happens to see your stuff.

So, Facebook can legally use your stuff in any way they like. (advertising, promotion, whatever). But they don't own anything.
But other people cannot. That's copyright violation, even if it isn't practical to enforce.

You do. That's reality. By definition of how the laws work, I own this forum post I'm making as well.
You can almost guarantee that Defy media has it in their TOS that by agreeing to use these forums, I give them the right to do whatever they like with what I post here.
That doesn't mean they own it.
Just means I can't complain if they do whatever they like to it.
Your right to mess with it (quote bits of it, and so on) aren't because I no longer own it, but because it falls within the rights I've granted Defy Media by posting it here.

That's the legal reality.
Can I enforce that in any meaningful sense? No. Of course not. (nor do I see any point in doing so)
But it's still true.

Fair use is an entirely different matter, and shouldn't be confused with anything else.

Fair use says you may be allowed to use my copyrighted stuff even though I haven't given you permission of any kind to do so.(remember that me posting on facebook or here is me giving implicit permission for Facebook or the Escapist permission to use my stuff. Doesn't give them ownership of it, just permission to use it.)

What is considered fair use varies. (and it's not a universally accepted concept; Not all countries have such a provision, and given that the internet spans the entire planet, something that's 'fair use' in one place can still be violating copyright in another).

But regardless of if fair use applies, or if what you're doing is indirectly covered by some prior agreement a person makes with an organisation like facebook, what is definitely not the case, is that a person loses ownership of their work simply by putting it on a site such as facebook (or youtube. Or here. Or whatever).

Sure, you can't practically expect that to be respected on the internet, but it is really, really annoying that people are so used to it they don't even realise the original creator still owns the copyright regardless.

Granting someone rights to use something is not the same as granting them ownership.

People get used to weird stuff and think that's the way the rules work. But it isn't.

Maybe it should be, but then, why is it acceptable for a big company to sue you for putting their TV show on youtube, but if someone copies your picture off facebook without permission you should just 'get over it, you don't own it anymore! If you didn't want people copying it, don't put it online!'

Because, that is clearly stupid. Either copyright means something, or it doesn't, and we desperately need to decide which. Because when it's something that only has meaning if you're some big company with lots of lawyers, then it becomes a great way for said corporations to be incredibly abusive.

But that's a side issue to what's happening here.
Which is that some people apparently believe things which simply aren't true.

Does it happen online? Yes.
Does it happen a lot, in fact? Yes.

But that doesn't automatically make it OK.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
CrystalShadow said:
To begin with, copyright is innate. So anything a person makes is copyrighted by default.
Secondly, the Terms of Service for Facebook (and pretty much any similar site) don't negate your ownership. That is complete and utter paranoid and or delusional nonsense.
Well, to be more specific, it varies by region. In the US, yes. Copyright is an opt-out system, meaning you are covered by default.

Though your recourse is limited without registration of copyright.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Something Amyss said:
CrystalShadow said:
To begin with, copyright is innate. So anything a person makes is copyrighted by default.
Secondly, the Terms of Service for Facebook (and pretty much any similar site) don't negate your ownership. That is complete and utter paranoid and or delusional nonsense.
Well, to be more specific, it varies by region. In the US, yes. Copyright is an opt-out system, meaning you are covered by default.
The US actually used to be one of the places that was opt-in rather than opt-out. That mostly changed due to a number of treaties.

Thanks to the Berne convention ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention ) you can reasonably rely on copyright being 'opt-out' in any country that is a signatory to that convention. (it's one of the fundamentals of the agreement. And in fact the reason why the US system is now Opt-out instead of what it originally was)

Most countries in the world are signatories. I don't know any current exceptions, though my guess places like North Korea or the like...

But anyway, Copyright is opt-out nearly everywhere in the world as a result of that, even if other details of the laws in any given place vary.