The Ethics of "Project Harpoon"

[Azure23]

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?

Heh. SJWs can mutilate copyrighted characters that form the memories of a great many childhoods. 4chan can mutilate copyrighted pictures of real people.

Don't see how it's an invasion of privacy. It's not as if they hacked into their computers/phones to get those pictures. Those are public images.

Offensive maybe. But SJW fucking with copyrighted images to further their agenda is just as offensive to the artist of said works and their fans. Fight fire with fire as you say. How are SJWs liking a taste of their own medicine?

Holy shit man calm down, no one was mutiliated in the making of those photos, your cherished childhood memories were not tied down and funnel fed cake and ice cream.

This was a set of images created to run in conjunction with an article targeted at young teen gamers that was focused on collecting and presenting resources for those with eating disorders. You would never have seen these images if some news station wasn't having a slow day, so stop acting like they were some kinda personal insult to you. Bulimia.com is not "the dreaded sjw," they're people who care about eating disorders (insofar as that is a social issue I suppose they could actually be considered SJW's) and work to prevent them in children and teens. The use of the images of characters as used in the article would fall under fair use in America, so I'm not really sure what your purpose in bringing up copyright was. Your claim that the images somehow "offended" the creators of the characters is absolutely laughable. Show me one, one verifiable tweet from an artist who created one of those characters complaining. I feel pretty secure that you won't, because most artists are used to seeing their work used in ways they didn't expect, and as far as those sorts of things go, this is incredibly tame.

But let's be honest for a moment, if you actually think that altering a photo of a real person for purposes of ridicule is comparable to photoshopping some fictional characters to make a point about bulimia to young gamers, well, I suspect I'm wasting my time,

Also, and maybe it's just me, but it seems like a truly large amount if people don't understand the distinction between something that is legal to look at and see, and something that is legal to take and alter. In the case of pictures posted to Facebook, only Facebook can fuck with them, I've had FB pictures lifted and reposted elsewhere, I sent dmca claims and got them taken down. And you know what? Even the legal defense is too far. Fuck people whose only recourse is saying "well, it wasn't technically ILLEGAL," those people are universally assholes.

 

[Jarek Mace]

See, I know that the mods and rules demand you contribute a fair amount to the conversation rather than one word it, but the only thing I can think to say is "Hah, nice."

 

[webkilla]

See, I know that the mods and rules demand you contribute a fair amount to the conversation rather than one word it, but the only thing I can think to say is "Hah, nice."

I agree here

The project makes fun of the sad fact that these fat women basically have the potential to be slim and beautiful women - that's it. It parodies their own bellyaching, highlighting how silly their own claims are

 

[TechNoFear]

Tv, books, movies and games are IP protected because they are officially copyrighted by a person or company.

You appear to be confusing trademark, copyright and publicity rights.

In the US...

Copyright is automatic, starting when the work was created, provided the work is eligible for copyright (ie only works created by a human are covered by copyright, so monkey selfies or elephant paintings are not).

IP rights do not cover currently any live organisms.

Living organisms are covered by IP rights and have been since the US passed the 'Plant Patent Act' in 1930.

You may and can copyright your body image and thus your future images by summiting photos to the patent office in DC.

You can only copyright an expression of an object, not the object itself (ie a painting / photo / video of a cat can be copyrighted, not the cat).

Your photo is automatically covered when you take it, you do not need to submit them.

The patent office (USPTO) handles patents and trademarks. The copyright office (USCO) handles copyright.

Then you will have official control over who has access to your images by suing those that use them without permission.

Only if the use violates copyright.

In this case the use was substantially derivative, non commercial, does not detract from the copyright owners use of the work and so would appear to be clear Fair Use.

 

[Dizchu]

The project makes fun of the sad fact that these fat women basically have the potential to be slim and beautiful women - that's it. It parodies their own bellyaching, highlighting how silly their own claims are

People have the potential to be many things. I have the potential to be a great pianist or an entrepreneur or an astronaut. I also have the potential to be obese, have ridiculously huge muscles, or be a model myself. Just because I have the potential to be any of those things doesn't mean that I am obligated to put in the effort to do any of those things.

You could argue that being overweight brings health risks, and that these women have the "potential" to be healthy. Sure. But I know that I eat a few too many pizzas and not enough veggies. Am I safe from this treatment just because I'm skinny? There's a good chance that many of the women that were edited have better diets and exercise routines than I do. Why aren't I a suitable target? Photos of me are out there.

The project is nothing but a bunch of creeps editing photos out of spite. Or for fap material. Either way, it's the kind of behaviour that has a lot in common with the socially inept "lolcows" 4chan likes to laugh at, the only difference being the fact that some of the edits were quite well done (but others looked as amateurish as skinny teenagers copying and pasting abs onto themselves).

 

[Battenberg]

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)".

It's less victim blaming and more "You know this shit happens in reality and you know the people responsible are rarely made to face the consequences, so why are you expecting something different all of a sudden?"

That attitude of " life's not fair, deal with it" really annoys me. Why are so many people so content to just shrug people being assholes off instead of making an effort to change things? It's defeatist at best and exceptionally lazy at worst.

 

[Gengisgame]

The project makes fun of the sad fact that these fat women basically have the potential to be slim and beautiful women - that's it. It parodies their own bellyaching, highlighting how silly their own claims are

People have the potential to be many things. I have the potential to be a great pianist or an entrepreneur or an astronaut. I also have the potential to be obese, have ridiculously huge muscles, or be a model myself. Just because I have the potential to be any of those things doesn't mean that I am obligated to put in the effort to do any of those things.

You could argue that being overweight brings health risks, and that these women have the "potential" to be healthy. Sure. But I know that I eat a few too many pizzas and not enough veggies. Am I safe from this treatment just because I'm skinny? There's a good chance that many of the women that were edited have better diets and exercise routines than I do. Why aren't I a suitable target? Photos of me are out there.

The project is nothing but a bunch of creeps editing photos out of spite. Or for fap material. Either way, it's the kind of behaviour that has a lot in common with the socially inept "lolcows" 4chan likes to laugh at, the only difference being the fact that some of the edits were quite well done (but others looked as amateurish as skinny teenagers copying and pasting abs onto themselves).

You don't have the point you think you do when you factor in a sense of realism. Maintaining a healthy body weight is a realistic goal, it is absurd to compare maintaining a healthy body weight with being an astronaut.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The project makes fun of the sad fact that these fat women basically have the potential to be slim and beautiful women - that's it. It parodies their own bellyaching, highlighting how silly their own claims are

You've equated being slim with being beautiful, which is subjective.

You're also claiming that losing a substantial amount of weight and keeping it off is feasible, which objectively it isn't for most people. Statistically, the amount of people that try and succeed at this is tiny, single digits percentile if that.

 

[Dizchu]

You don't have the point you think you do when you factor in a sense of realism. Maintaining a healthy body weight is a realistic goal, it is absurd to compare maintaining a healthy body weight with being an astronaut.

You're missing the point. It's not about how "realistic" the goal is. It's about obligation. Just because you have the potential to do X doesn't mean you have to do X. I used far-fetched examples because, with a lifelong dedication, those things are possible. But even with things that require less dedication (like maintaining a healthy body weight), there's no obligation.

There are plenty of "realistic" goals that we all have that we aren't obligated to reach. I could learn to drive. It'd certainly benefit me. But am I obligated to learn to drive? No. If I learn to drive it'd be because I want to be able to drive, not because some jackass on the internet showed me how better my life could be if I did.

The project makes fun of the sad fact that these fat women basically have the potential to be slim and beautiful women - that's it. It parodies their own bellyaching, highlighting how silly their own claims are

You've equated being slim with being beautiful, which is subjective.

Yes! If someone that was into heavy people (BBW is a thing, isn't it?) photoshopped an image of me to fit their ideals, I'd be as creeped out and insulted as any of the women "featured" in Project Harpoon.

Especially if the justification was "just eat more, and you can attain this!" No, I don't want to attain that.

 

[Mau95]

I thought it was kind of funny.

"don't cross the road if you don't want to be hit by a car".

"Be careful what you put on the Internet, because you're probably never going to get it off of the Internet again" is like one of the top five rules of the Internet. Look both ways before crossing the street, don't just run into oncoming traffic.

 

[chuckman1]

4Chan is full of dicks these guys are dicks. It's legal but inmoral. Yes fat is unhealthy but we all do something unhealthy. But fat people are bullied by society and that's unfair. Plus not all can help it.

And some chubby girls are hot so let's not be dicks. Most of us have wanted one before.

 

[Bat Vader]

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?

Heh. SJWs can mutilate copyrighted characters that form the memories of a great many childhoods. 4chan can mutilate copyrighted pictures of real people.

Don't see how it's an invasion of privacy. It's not as if they hacked into their computers/phones to get those pictures. Those are public images.

Offensive maybe. But SJW fucking with copyrighted images to further their agenda is just as offensive to the artist of said works and their fans. Fight fire with fire as you say. How are SJWs liking a taste of their own medicine?

How do we know the pictures of the people that were altered were SJW's? The more reasonable guess is that the the people whose pictures were altered have nothing to do with this. I think we can all agree altering pictures of fictional or real life people is a dick move and that the shit needs to fucking stop.

 

[Bat Vader]

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.

Also fuck fat advocacy, if a bunch of lazy fucks want to take pride in their overweight joy then be my guest. But don't start hating and then warping images of people who put the effort in to take care of their bodies because you're a lazy ****.

Just because someone takes joy in being overweight doesn't automatically make them lazy. A friend of mine is fat and he is nowhere near being lazy. He works hard at his job and he likes to exercise three times a week for an hour in a half. He knows he can lose weight but he prefers to stay fat because his wife likes him to be that size. If someone wants to be fat that's cool. If someone wants to be skinny that's cool too. It's not my job to care about how others take care of their bodies.

I am skinny but I can't find any skinny women attractive. I prefer women that are curvy or have some meat on their bones. I turned a woman down a few years ago because she was too skinny.

Examples of women I find attractive kinda NSFW:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[Kameburger]

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?

You know, I think we are reaching a point where we can't expect privacy these days in regards to photos we post on social media. I think that's absolutely true. Although I do sympathize that these days as you never know when you might be the victim of the internet just doing its own thing. Especially in regards to your friend, that really sucks. It might be nice to see more protections for individuals wishing to not be publicly shamed but much like the EU's right to be forgotten cases with google, I think the attempt to fix such a thing may cause a lot of unexpected problems.

As for the 4Chan movement, I don't quite know what to say. I always have felt that this kind of fat acceptance activism is somewhat miss guided. I think Fat acceptance really makes sense when trying talking about fighting eating disorders, and certainly there is something to be said for impossible standards of beauty, however I think saying to kids, it's ok to be fat and then saying that we should just make movie and video game characters fat to compensate is effectively saying "please ignore this serious health issue because it's really hard to deal with the right way". Not that I think 4chan is articulating that point, but I think their targeting that campaign is valid.

Healthy people are happier, have better self-esteem and on average experience more success in life. While I don't think it's wrong to make anyone feel bad about the way they look and I certainly didn't like it much when I had weight problems as a kid, I think it is wrong to send kids the message that being skinny is somehow some outrageous demand by society rather then a commitment to good health.

 

[^=ash=^]

Remember there are dicks on both sides of the fence, one gets media sympathy however.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[Bat Vader]

SNIP

That's what saying "I like women with some meat on their bones." means. I was using cool as in a I couldn't care any less type of tone. I even said it isn't my job to tell people how to care about their bodies. That signifies I don't give a shit. I never tried to mask it either. Why you think I did I have no idea.

I've told him it's a shitty excuse but his health and weight isn't my problem.

 

[Bat Vader]

SNIP

That's what saying "I like women with some meat on their bones." means. I was using cool as in a I couldn't care any less type of tone. I even said it isn't my job to tell people how to care about their bodies. That signifies I don't give a shit. I never tried to mask it either. Why you think I did I have no idea.

I've told him it's a shitty excuse but his health and weight isn't my problem.

"Some meat on their bones" is masking it. That's my point. Just say overweight, just say fat. Don't hide behind stuff like "meat on their bone" or "some curves".

I wasn't hiding behind anything. If it wasn't a well known phrase that would be one thing but it's a well known phrase. It refers to both fat and overweight women. It has one meaning and you obviously know it as well billions of others. If I was trying to hide behind a phrase I would use one not many people know that has many different meanings. That's how you hide behind your wording.

You can continue to mistakenly think I was making my words but in the end I am right and you're wrong.