The Ethics of "Project Harpoon"

[vledleR]

Don't feed the fuckin' trolls. Get it through your thick skulls already. Oh what am I kidding, no one's gonna listen to me anyway.

I find this to be a very unrealistic expectation. Do you honestly think that my friend, upon discovering that a photo her friend took of her was not only published on a public page with thousands of followers for all to see, but digitally manipulated with a side-by-side comparison to suggest that she "didn't look good enough", should have just said to herself "well, trolls will be trolls"?

Project Harpoon have presented an ultimatum. "If you are overweight, don't take pictures of yourself or we will mock you". That goes beyond trolling into delusional sadism. This is not the same 4chan that did Project Chanology, it's not the same 4chan that went after the Steubenville rapists when the justice system failed. It's not even the same 4chan that funded The Fine Young Capitalists. This is a group of pathetic cowards who wouldn't dare express these things in public, hiding behind their keyboards, cracked versions of Photoshop and avatars featuring the trashy moeblob of the week. Scratching their neckbeards with cheese-stained fingers wondering why girls won't talk to them.

It's also incredibly unrealistic to expect a modicum of decency out of the people behind Project Harpoon, and I think that is a good example as to why outrage culture is spinning out of control atm. You have one side of people without a shred of dignity who will get a laugh out of the most abhorrent things, and another side who thinks it is a genuinely good idea to try and engage and shame people who have no shame.

If there is a single person who saw this thread and decided to join the shitshow of Project Harpoon, then you have done your friend and any other victims of Project Harpoon a disservice, no matter how many people comment on how reprehensible it is.

 

[Tsaba]

to be put it in simpler terms, would you pose naked in your window? Not any window mind you, but, the second floor window on the side of your house. Is it private? Sure.... Can someone see you doing this and take pictures? Why yes they can.

On the note of project harpoon, since when has 4Chan been sincere in most if not all the things they do. They're being trolls, its what they do best.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

*snip*

*snip*

Where is this absurd notion coming from that the only pictures of you on the internet are the ones you've posted personally?

Are you both claiming that someone would have it coming for having friends that posted a picture of them on Facebook? There are going to be pictures of you on the internet, that's almost guaranteed. Either you can spend your life in seclusion to avoid it, or you can hope that other people have the decency not to parade around your photos like a whale.

It's probably just me, but I feel like the person mocking them is the one with the problem, not the person who doesn't seek out and destroy all evidence of themselves on the internet

 

[Olas]

Look, I'm all for fat acceptance, I'm even pretty agnostic about the HAAS movement, but seriously, who gives a shit? Is it even offensive to Photoshop an image of someone to make them look thinner? What exactly is the issue here?

I find the name of the "project" somewhat humorous. That's about it.

 

[someguy1231]

1. So what you're saying is that people should stop using the internet for social networking?

2. It's not acceptable either way, but at least the original set of images used fictional characters.

3. Why not? Can I take photos of people I find in the street, post them around for all to see? Is that okay? Why do release forms exist? When you redistribute private photos with the intention of mockery, inviting the scrutiny of thousands of viewers, how is that not harassment?

1. Putting words in my mouth much? The nature of the internet means that, once you place a photo of yourself there where anyone can see it, whatever happens to it after that is completely beyond your control. Simple as that. Besides, you can partake in social networking without ever uploading any photos.

2. It has been done with real-life people before. Type "celebrities photoshopped to be fat" into Google. And it's irrelevant to me anyway whether it's being done on real or fictional people.

3. Such is an inevitable consequence of living in an age of ubiquitous cameras and the internet. And again, photos cease to be "private" if you intentionally post them on a publicly accessible part of the internet. As for "harassment", plenty of people get shamed or criticized if they're perceived to deserve it, and in those cases the ones doing it would never claim it's "harassment". We see this all the time on both sides of every debate: "It's not harassment when WE do it!"

 

[VanQ]

Where is this absurd notion coming from that the only pictures of you on the internet are the ones you've posted personally?

Are you both claiming that someone would have it coming for having friends that posted a picture of them on Facebook? There are going to be pictures of you on the internet, that's almost guaranteed. Either you can spend your life in seclusion to avoid it, or you can hope that other people have the decency not to parade around your photos like a whale.

It's probably just me, but I feel like the person mocking them is the one with the problem, not the person who doesn't seek out and destroy all evidence of themselves on the internet

We're all putting way too much thought into this in the first place. A bunch of people on the internet set out to offend the oversensitive, hyper-reactionary part of the internet. They achieved their goal and then some. Remember how I said to stop feeding the trolls like three times in this thread already? Remember when I said no one would listen?

I was right.

 

[Dizchu]

I don't know what anime has to do with this, but it's nice to know you're mad enough to start placing the blame on people that have anime avatars. That's real great of ya. I'm sure that there's at least one Project Harpoon person enjoying your anger thoroughly.

The point here is that they're scrutinising people for their appearances while deliberately hiding behind a veil of anonymity. There's nothing wrong with having an anime avatar, as I have one myself. But when people brag about how thick their skin is in comparison to those upset with having their personal photos redistributed while hiding behind images of pretty anime girls, that just screams arrogance and insecurity.

And I hope they do get some enjoyment from this. Self-loathing is a pretty destructive thing, maybe they need a brief respite from that.

1. Putting words in my mouth much? The nature of the internet means that, once you place a photo of yourself there where anyone can see it, whatever happens to it after that is completely beyond your control. Simple as that. Besides, you can partake in social networking without ever uploading any photos.

2. It has been done with real-life people before. Type "celebrities photoshopped to be fat" into Google. And it's irrelevant to me anyway whether it's being done on real or fictional people.

3. Such is an inevitable consequence of living in an age of ubiquitous cameras and the internet. And again, photos cease to be "private" if you intentionally post them on a publicly accessible part of the internet. As for "harassment", plenty of people get shamed or criticized if they're perceived to deserve it, and in those cases the ones doing it would never claim it's "harassment". We see this all the time on both sides of every debate: "It's not harassment when WE do it!"

1. You're literally saying that people should put a handicap on their online experiences because of the slim chance that some asshole will do something like this to them. I'm pretty sure people can do without that sort of paranoia. The people who had the audacity to post photos of themselves are not in the wrong here and I am astounded by how people are turning this whole thing around on them.

2. Yeah but the inspiration for this movement involved video game characters. Maybe they should've used a better example.

3. Please tell me that you can see the difference between feminist crybabies complaining about a shirt a guy chose to wear which they can choose not to look at, and people having their photos taken without permission and subsequently directly ridiculed to fuel an internet trolling campaign.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

We're all putting way too much thought into this in the first place. A bunch of people on the internet set out to offend the oversensitive, hyper-reactionary part of the internet. They achieved their goal and then some. Remember how I said to stop feeding the trolls like three times in this thread already? Remember when I said no one would listen?

I was right.

Weird, and I said a while back that the fact that people were targeted and humiliated by this meant that whether or not people get upset damage has been done.

I don't get this notion of using "trolling" as a shield. Say that you're trolling and you should be absolutely free from whatever criticism. You can do whatever you want, and be as much as a jackass and people will shield you for it

 

[VanQ]

Weird, and I said a while back that the fact that people were targeted and humiliated by this meant that whether or not people get upset damage has been done.

I don't get this notion of using "trolling" as a shield. Say that you're trolling and you should be absolutely free from whatever criticism. You can do whatever you want, and be as much as a jackass and people will shield you for it

No, they shouldn't be free. Block, report them and move on. Don't post news articles and make threads everywhere giving them the attention and glory they desire. Jesus christ, this isn't hard.

 

[Olas]

1. So what you're saying is that people should stop using the internet for social networking?

Seems like a good idea to me.

Although if you insist on social networking, you could also just not upload actual pictures of yourself. Or you could upload actual pictures of yourself and just not give a fuck if some people digitally edit it and repost it somewhere else.

2. It's not acceptable either way, but at least the original set of images used fictional characters.

Why isn't it "acceptable"?

3. Why not? Can I take photos of people I find in the street, post them around for all to see? Is that okay?

Is it not? We're talking about a picture of someone in public... being made public... what's the issue? If the person didn't want to be seen, for whatever reason, they shouldn't have gone out in public. It seems like all you're doing is pointing an arrow at something everyone can already see.

Why do release forms exist? When you redistribute private photos with the intention of mockery, inviting the scrutiny of thousands of viewers, how is that not harassment?

The "intention" isn't something we can know, and nothing about the photo's seemed offensive to me. Simply taking something already put out in public and placing it on a pedestal isn't really making any sort of definitive statement, so if it's harassment at all, it seems like one of the weakest forms of harassment I've ever heard of.

Is a yearbook photo harassment? Is someone being caught on video in the background of a news broadcast harassment? The only thing that makes these different is the presence of an alternate, thinner version as well. Which seems possibly flattering, possibly creepy in a stalkery kind of way, but not really offensive. At least I don't see how it could be interpreted as offensive.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

No, they shouldn't be free. Block, report them and move on. Don't post news articles and make threads everywhere giving them the attention and glory they desire. Jesus christ, this isn't hard.

As far as I can tell there's one thread here, and it was started by someone who personally knew someone who got their picture broadcast. People post about shitty things that happen to them and their friends all the time. The fact that a lot of people are doing it makes it more of a relevant story.

Plus, this whole business was born out of disdain for the fat acceptance movement. They've inadvertently helped justify it. If anyone's anyone's hurt by talking about this, it's the people who had enough of an issue with overweight models to act like shitheads over it.

 

[someguy1231]

1. You're literally saying that people should put a handicap on their online experiences because of the slim chance that some asshole will do something like this to them. I'm pretty sure people can do without that sort of paranoia. The people who had the audacity to post photos of themselves are not in the wrong here and I am astounded by how people are turning this whole thing around on them.

2. Yeah but the inspiration for this movement involved video game characters. Maybe they should've used a better example.

3. Please tell me that you can see the difference between feminist crybabies complaining about a shirt a guy chose to wear which they can choose not to look at, and people having their photos taken without permission and subsequently directly ridiculed to fuel an internet trolling campaign.

1. I'm not saying they should. I'm saying they should be aware of the risks and possibilities that inevitably come with posting pictures of yourself on the internet.

2. Frankly I'm surprised something like this hadn't been done earlier by 4chan. Like I said, the video game characters were hardly the first to have this done to them. It's also been done to real-life celebrities and comic book characters. Maybe the video game one was just "the last straw", so to speak, especially because that one got much more online attention than those other ones. (Oh, and as someone who visited most of those sites that gave it attention, almost all of the comments people had were negative, even on sites that are usually sympathetic to feminism/social justice.)

3. I'm not talking about photos taken without permission here. Those are never acceptable, regardless of who they are or what's done with them. I'm talking only about people who intentionally put photos of themselves online in a publicly available place. Stop trying to conflate the two. There's a world of difference between them. If you really can't handle the possibility of someone doing something you don't like with your photograph, then don't post them where anyone with an internet connection can see them. Simple as that.

 

[Olas]

snip

Ah, is ee. Thanks.

I wouldn't describe this as impossible though. I've seen people lose a silly amount of weight, and the results were absolute changes in looks. I think you underestimate how much of a person is really chub and how little is bones.

I think it depends on the person. The picture you posted shows one example of how someone with a small bone structure can be obese, but that doesn't mean all obese people have a small bone structure.

I think if you can feel your ribs, but not see them, you're in the healthy body range regardless of objective size. Though don't quote me on that.

 

[Dizchu]

2. It's not acceptable either way, but at least the original set of images used fictional characters.

Why isn't it "acceptable"?

I'm unsure of the legality but I think in both instances the use of underhanded tactics to promote an agenda is something that should be widely criticised. And funnily enough, the use of fattened video game characters to promote an agenda was criticised. But here? I see a lot of people blaming the victim. At least Lara Croft and Tifa Lockhart are fictional and can't be victimised.

Is it not? We're talking about a picture of someone in public... being made public... what's the issue? If the person didn't want to be seen, for whatever reason, they shouldn't have gone out in public. It seems like all you're doing is pointing an arrow at something everyone can already see.

So why do film crews ask for permission to film members of the public? Why do peoples' faces get blurred out if they've refused permission? Why do people blur out profile pictures and names from user comments? I'm not saying it's illegal to parade people around without permission, but if anything the blame is not on the people who dared show themselves in public. I know asking for this level of common human decency from the edgy 12 year olds that currently occupy 4chan is pretty laughable, but why should everyone else throw away their standards just because they do?

The "intention" isn't something we can know, and nothing about the photo's seemed offensive to me. Simply taking something already put out in public and placing it on a pedestal isn't really making any sort of definitive statement, so if it's harassment at all, it seems like one of the weakest forms of harassment I've ever heard of.

They're called "Project Harpoon". The intention is pretty obvious. The definition of harassment encompasses a variety of behaviours that typically involve the repeated intimidation, degradation and humiliation of an individual. Distributing private photos for the purpose of mockery is intimidation, as it pressures the individual to cease using public spaces. The degradation comes from being called a "whale" (duh) and being told that they don't fit a certain "standard" by complete strangers. The humiliation comes from being put in a spotlight for no good reason, just for others to poke fun at them. The repeated nature comes from the repeated redistributions, not just by Project Harpoon but by news organisations reporting on them.

If that doesn't qualify as harassment, I'd like to know what does.

Is a yearbook photo harassment? Is someone being caught on video in the background of a news broadcast harassment? The only thing that makes these different is the presence of an alternate, thinner version as well. Which seems possibly flattering, possibly creepy in a stalkery kind of way, but not really offensive. At least I don't see how it could be interpreted as offensive.

It's offensive because it is explicitly telling them that they are severely flawed, when they asked for no such judgement. It's offensive in the same way someone on the street telling you you're "a fat piece of shit" is offensive. Am I saying that fat people shouldn't be made aware that being obese is unhealthy? Of course not, I've had my own criticisms of fat-acceptance myself. But that's what doctors, friends and family are for. It's none of my business. It's none of Project Harpoon's business either. The fact that they desperately want to make it their business shows an extreme insecurity.

 

[DementedSheep]

For everyone pulling "shouldn't have taken a picture" shit (it not like they are taking nudes, it's normal pictures) I hope someone finds a photo of you on your personal facebooks, post it on page dedicated to mocking people who are f-ing ugly and it becomes a meme.

 

[Bat Vader]

I feel this theory applies here.

Spoiler

This is why I don't post pictures of myself online.

 

[JustAnotherAardvark]

I feel this theory applies here.

I think there's a little more to it in than that, personally; it's not just the user's anonymity, it's the anonymity of the audience. I've said some horrid things about directors/actors/whathaveyou, for instance, because they're far enough removed that they aren't really 'people', if you follow. And because I thought the movie was really, really bad.

This is why I don't post pictures of myself online.

They will get there anyway; my brief foray into FB showed me how many pictures there were out there of me that I neither took nor posted.

 

[Olas]

2. It's not acceptable either way, but at least the original set of images used fictional characters.

Why isn't it "acceptable"?

I'm unsure of the legality but I think in both instances the use of underhanded tactics to promote an agenda is something that should be widely criticised. And funnily enough, the use of fattened video game characters to promote an agenda was criticised.

To me they both seem trivial. Though when people where criticizing the fattened video game characters, I think it was more along the lines of being stupid and pointless than outright offensive or harmful. If you want me to say that project harpoon was stupid and pointless then you win. But I don't think it was ever INTENDED to be anything more than a troll attempt.

But here? I see a lot of people blaming the victim. At least Lara Croft and Tifa Lockhart are fictional and can't be victimised.

I really don't care about blame. To me blame is irrelevant. What matters is how we can stop bad things from happening to people. Look both ways before you cross the street, don't use the same password for every account, and don't post full body pics online if you can't handle people doing stuff with them. You can "blame" people all you want, but it isn't going to stop it from happening.

Is it not? We're talking about a picture of someone in public... being made public... what's the issue? If the person didn't want to be seen, for whatever reason, they shouldn't have gone out in public. It seems like all you're doing is pointing an arrow at something everyone can already see.

So why do film crews ask for permission to film members of the public?

I assume because they're creating a commercial product that they'll be profiting off of.

Why do peoples' faces get blurred out if they've refused permission?

Well it depends on the situation. If you're talking about interviews on TV it's probably the only way they'll agree to be interviewed. There are tons of reasons someone giving testimony might not want to be identified.

I know asking for this level of common human decency from the edgy 12 year olds that currently occupy 4chan is pretty laughable, but why should everyone else throw away their standards just because they do?

I'm not sure what you mean by "throw away their standards". What did any of us do? Are you angry that we aren't super passionate about this the way you are? Just because I wouldn't do something myself, that doesn't mean I'm going to go on a crusade every time someone else does it. If anything it's counterproductive to react to it at all. The edgy 12 year olds at 4chan only spend their time doing this type of stuff to get a reaction, if everyone shrugged their shoulders and moved on the fire would run out of oxygen.

The "intention" isn't something we can know, and nothing about the photo's seemed offensive to me. Simply taking something already put out in public and placing it on a pedestal isn't really making any sort of definitive statement, so if it's harassment at all, it seems like one of the weakest forms of harassment I've ever heard of.

They're called "Project Harpoon". The intention is pretty obvious.

Okay, the name is offensive. Funny, but offensive. Still, I saw worse stuff in second grade. Heck, I DID worse stuff in second grade. This isn't harassment, it's juvenile name calling. It might be bordering on bullying if it was a bit more direct and personal.

The definition of harassment encompasses a variety of behaviours that typically involve the repeated intimidation, degradation and humiliation of an individual. Distributing private photos for the purpose of mockery is intimidation, as it pressures the individual to cease using public spaces. The degradation comes from being called a "whale" (duh) and being told that they don't fit a certain "standard" by complete strangers. The humiliation comes from being put in a spotlight for no good reason, just for others to poke fun at them. The repeated nature comes from the repeated redistributions, not just by Project Harpoon but by news organisations reporting on them.

If that doesn't qualify as harassment, I'd like to know what does.

You're being semantic. Like I said, if this is harassment, it's just about the mildest harassment I can recall.

Is a yearbook photo harassment? Is someone being caught on video in the background of a news broadcast harassment? The only thing that makes these different is the presence of an alternate, thinner version as well. Which seems possibly flattering, possibly creepy in a stalkery kind of way, but not really offensive. At least I don't see how it could be interpreted as offensive.

It's offensive because it is explicitly telling them that they are severely flawed, when they asked for no such judgement. It's offensive in the same way someone on the street telling you you're "a fat piece of shit" is offensive. Am I saying that fat people shouldn't be made aware that being obese is unhealthy? Of course not, I've had my own criticisms of fat-acceptance myself. But that's what doctors, friends and family are for. It's none of my business. It's none of Project Harpoon's business either. The fact that they desperately want to make it their business shows an extreme insecurity.

It's rude to call someone a "piece of shit". Adding the word "fat" to the beginning only adds offense if you consider being fat a point of shame. Somehow I don't see a member of the FAT ACCEPTANCE movement feeling that way. As a fat person, who fully supports the fat acceptance movement, I don't see why this is so bad. In fact I don't even see why the whale analogy is so offensive. Whales are awesome, they're huge, intelligent, powerful, and often beautiful creatures. Some species of whale can even kill sharks. There are worse animals a fat person could be compared to is what I'm saying.

They should have gone with something like Project Pig Roast or something like that. I'll admit I'm not too creative.

 

[Karadalis]

Heres the ethical conflict:

They took pictures they had no rights to and changed them, from private persons no less.

This is a huge nono. They can do that with people of public interest who have their pictures all over the news and media.. but not to someone who posts a selfie an facebook.

Also this is 4chan... since when do the words 4chan and ethics belong in the same sentence other to say "it doesnt have them" ?

As for the concept behind it... i can dig it. Even thought some of the photoshops borderlined or went over to the other unhealthy extreme i think the concept of showing an overly obese person what they could look like if they stopped their unhealthy livestyle could be inspirational.

However if people dont want to... you should leave them the fuck alone.

 

[Bat Vader]

I feel this theory applies here.

I think there's a little more to it in than that, personally; it's not just the user's anonymity, it's the anonymity of the audience. I've said some horrid things about directors/actors/whathaveyou, for instance, because they're far enough removed that they aren't really 'people', if you follow. And because I thought the movie was really, really bad.

This is why I don't post pictures of myself online.

They will get there anyway; my brief foray into FB showed me how many pictures there were out there of me that I neither took nor posted.

If they took pictures of models and altered them that would be one thing but taking the pictures of random people and altering them is just a huge dick move to me. I don't see it as harassment but I do consider it a shitty thing to do. I criticize the director and actor's performances all the time. There's nothing wrong with that.