The Ethics of "Project Harpoon"

[RobertEHouse]

This comes down to privacy, right? The control of one's self image online?

I was responding to the fact that FB, does not give you privacy period. Those rights are given away when you sign up to FB. FB is allowed to "Manipulate", "Post" and even "Sell your Photos" without your compensation.

Which has fuck all to do with this case, because facebook didn't sell those photos to those people to manipulate. And you're right, it isn't facebook that 'gives' you privacy, it's the laws on privacy and publicity that give you those rights.

How are your "Photos private" any more when a corporation owns them? How do you have control over them?

Facebook doesn't own them, you might want to check: www.facebook.com/legal/terms

2. Sharing Your Content and Information

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook (emphasis mine) , and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:

1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission (emphasis mine), subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-liscensable, royalty-free, worldwide liscense to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP liscense). This IP liscense ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

This pertains exclusively as to what Facebook is allowed to do with your photos, not any random shmuck from a chan. They don't own your photos, you are simply agreeing to let them use them.

The only difference here is a third party took those photos and "Manipulated" and "Posted" them. Then used those very images in a uncontrolled negative campaign to those people. This is what it feels like to lose control of your image online, now think of the paradox of letting a corporation have that control over your photos over it?

And that makes all the difference.

One last thing, I have read FB policies because it is my job. Adviser

Uh huh...

Content you give to FB under "Intellectual property" rights mean nothing unless you are a toaster. Are you a toaster? NO

"Intellectual property" rights are for products that have been "officially recognized" by the US patent office. Tv, books, movies and games are IP protected because they are officially copyrighted by a person or company. IP rights do not cover currently any live organisms. You may and can copyright your body image and thus your future images by summiting photos to the patent office in DC. To which, you may be awarded one, if you are awarded one, you will then be given a copyright to your body. Meaning you then can sort of have images listed as a IP. That is because those images are then officially backed up by a real official copyright. Then you will have official control over who has access to your images by suing those that use them without permission. I know it sounds all silly but this is how the system currently works with copyrighting a persons body.

This is what "IP" is, it is for products that are copyrighted officially.

No matter what you believe I have been doing this for several years and FB issues have come up over "IP" rights in the past. Mainly because people believe IP means protection for your own "personal images" and stuff without a official copyright. FB puts that language in their because if you do have a real copyright then they are legally covered, If not then they can still use you images any way they want until you delete your account.

The securities' options on any site currently does not have a Federal mandate or government oversight as to what they consider the word "secure" or "private" When it comes to Social media sites. So you never know if you are actually keeping things private away from the servers or back servers or backdoors.

Many people forget the legality and the scope of the web and that billions of people exist on it. That outside of your computer screens there are billions and some want nothing more than to watch the world burn. What you can do to stop or at least slow these problems to prevent another "Harpoon" is know your rights, to remember that anything online is not really secure or private. That backdoors exist in every social media site that allows not only your image to be stolen but also other private information.

We can get emotional over the whole topic even shout to the top of our vocal cords but in the past that does not do a thing. What we need are people to be more informed about the insecurities that exist with in these sites. As well as the jerks that can and will steal your information or even an image given the chance. But we first need to make sure the structure exist so this does not happen again and again the only way is though information. Information of dangers that not only exist in the real world but online as well, because shouting does nothing and trolls are always going exist but people have the power to control the amount of the damage they do.

 

[deadish]

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?

 

[Alleged_Alec]

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.

I agree with all of that, especially the 4Chan bit. Reddit, 8Chan, and a lot of places don't deserve their reputation (only some parts do), but 4Chan? Fuck 4Chan.

Apparently you've never been to 4chan then. Most of it is pretty okay.

No it isn't. At best it's a bunch of children and arrested adults trying to prove that they're part of something, while being too cool to be part of something.

SNOOOORE

Wow, dude. You're so mature and deep. You probably don't understand why people your age like shit such as Justin Bieber or Riannah, and you listen to the old-time greats, like Hendrix, Neil Young and the Stones.

Yes, there's a lot of shit on 4chan, there are a lot of edgy teens. That sort of shit happens.

However, it's also one of the few places on the internet which is consistently funny on a daily basis. It's the place where I can go if I need a peptalk for getting my ass to the gym (because we're all gonna make it, brah). It's a place where I can go into a feels thread, tell people what bothers me, no matter how personal or embarrassing, since it's as anonymous as it will get. It's the place where the same person can call me a huge ****** for liking Kahmala Kahn and tell me I have exquisite taste for reading Hellblazer in the same thread. It is one of the only places on the internet where reputation is practically a non-issue, where the only thing which matters about you is the quality of what you post.

 

[Dizchu]

you joined the escapist to ***** about gamergate didn't you?

Actually yes, yes I did. In Gamergate's favour.

I actually find it hilarious how I'm now considered an SJW after spending most of my time here defending Gamergate (even though I have issues with it), criticising social justice in general and making my issues with feminism known. While I've never tried to be arrogant and confrontational, I have rustled a few feathers here and there.

But I question the honesty of one 4chan circlejerk and suddenly I'm no better than the social justice mob I criticised in the first place.

Because fuck considering issues on an individual basis, right?

also as someone who is recovering from obesity: fat people need a fire lit under them sometimes, then the fat just melts off.

Sure, but you do that by making it known that obesity increases the risk of disease, not ridicule. If anti-smoking campaigns didn't outline health risks and instead just said "wow, look at how stupid and horrible these people are", how effective do you think that'd be?

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?

You're implying that all fat-activists were behind the original set of images. Come on now. This is like feminists coming to the conclusion that all gamers are misogynists because one person that happened to play games called a woman a slut one time. Or Jack Thompson coming to the conclusion that video games cause violence just because Eric Harris played Doom.

 

[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.