Developer Of Free Web Game Messes With Sites Embedding His Game With Goatse Image

from the ew-no dept

The tradition of game developers trolling those who pirate or otherwise use their games rather than immediately going the legal route has a long history. There are lots of ways to do this, most of which involve either breaking the game in certain ways, or inputting Easter eggs into games that cause those pirating it to reach out to developers on social media, essentially telling on themselves. On the one hand, a little humor in the approach as opposed to having lawyers fire off letters or lawsuits is certainly a better response. On the other hand, this trolling all takes up more development time and coding, leading to the obvious question: is any of this actually worth the effort?

Well, there’s trolling, and then there is trolling. Josh Simmons, developer of the free web game Sqword, decided to take some extreme measures when he discovered other sites were embedding his game in an iFrame window on their sites and surrounding the game with ads.

“This made me angrier than it should have—not because Sqword is a cash cow—we don’t run ads on the site and don’t make money from it, it’s just for fun—but because it was a passion project with friends, something pure and intentionally free to play WITHOUT ads,” Simmons writes. “It’s against my ethos as a developer, there are banners and popups everywhere. If I build an app, I believe it should either be free or it should be upfront about what the subscription or purchase price is (and then not upsell you). I couldn’t abide seeing my code monetized in this way.”

That frustration seems perfectly reasonable to me. He made a game that he wanted to be completely free to all, including free from advertisements, only to find his work being yanked into embeds on other sites monetizing his work. I can only imagine how frustrating that might be.

How he decided to combat those sites, however, may have been a bit much.

Instead of taking the “mature and responsible” route of simply blocking these external sites from using his code, Simmons says that he inserted a stealth attack in the Sqword code. Now, if the site detects it’s being loaded in an iFrame, it will display Goatse, the decades-old shock meme that has somehow evolved into an email service. The NSFW image served by Sqword also comes along with a self-incriminating message for visitors to the aggregator site: “I steal other people’s code because I’m a total hack.”

Here’s the problem: a surprise appearance of the “Goatse” image, which involves a graphic picture of a man’s stretched out posterior, does as much to punish visitors to the site as the site itself. If not more. And perhaps some of those visitors are children who stumbled across the game and had no idea about any of this backstory.

We might still want to say the onus is on these sites yanking in Simmons’ work to simply not do so, and perhaps that’s mostly true, but I’m also fairly sure Simmons isn’t looking to punish people who might otherwise be interested in playing the game he made available simply because they got duped into going to the wrong site. And while I’m loathe to make “but think of the children” arguments generally… I mean… it’s Goatse, for god’s sake.

Look, messing with these types of sites is still better than going legal. And the text was probably enough. Let’s not ambush people who likely didn’t even realize they were participating in something bad with gaping anuses.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Developer Of Free Web Game Messes With Sites Embedding His Game With Goatse Image”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
42 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew N. Bennett (profile) says:

Re:

Also, “punishing visitors” means they use the site less, the site gets complaints, they basically have to pull the game down, etc. It accomplishes the intended result of hurting them for stealing your content.

This article reads to me like it’s from someone who doesn’t know how to have fun. I am reminded of when SomethingAwful would punish websites that hotlinked shit from their forums by replacing those images with goatse. It’s a great well to tell someone off from stealing your content. Can we go back to that internet? I miss that internet.

Nemo says:

Goatse's too far out of line?

I can’t see how, since visitors immediately learn what titanic assholes are running the site. It’s self-explanatory, really.

As for any “collateral damage”, welcome to the old-school internet, baby. That’s how things rocked before offending others became a criminal activity, or close enough that things are worse than the gossipy old church biddies made things. That doesn’t make their regime good by any means, it’s that we’re returning to the same miserable condition.

This is progress?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Really? But think of the children!

Here is the sad truth. These websites are likely to have scammy or virus filled ads. Some probably have adult content as well rather they realize it or not.

This deters not just the site owners, but those who are using the site as well in a manner that won’t get ignored.

glenn says:

The fact is, though, that those who forever whine “think of the children” are the ones who think less of “the children” than anyone else. Children have never really needed protection from knowledge, which is basically all the Internet has ever provided for browsers of any age. Life is entirely about gaining knowledge and how to use it, to mature. But those who “think of the children” more than anything simply want to keep children in a prison of ignorance for as long as they can, because that will mean less work for “the grown-ups.” What children have always needed most is guidance–something that can require a lot of time and effort, something that too many so-called grown-ups are unwilling to provide.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“What this 9YO really need is a giant gaping rectum”

I’m not sure why you thought defending serving goatse to kids was valuable.

-I was goatsed over 20 years ago. Fucker got into my computer lab account and set by desktop background. Was a bad day for me. My apologies for my memory not faithfully recreating that image to describe it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Children have never really needed protection from knowledge

And I’m sure many of us were children when we first saw that image. We were grossed out, closed the window (tabbed browsing had not yet been invented) and went on with our lives. It’s not really any worse that what we might’ve seen in a horror movie—which we were mostly watching mostly because our parents said we couldn’t—or, on the “legit” side, a medical image, like maybe a TV show of an operating room.

It’s not a particularly nice thing to show to a child, but let’s not blow it out of proportion. If it were especially harmful, mental hospitals would by now have entire departments just to treat those of us who were online 15-25 years ago, in the “golden age” of shock images.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Wikipedia’s description suggests CORS can only be used to grant access to restricted-by-default resources. I don’t feel like enabling cookies and Javascript without explanation just so I can see Stack Overflow, so I don’t know what Josh said, but I suspect this may differ by browser. For example, in Techdirt’s recent Air Canada post, I’m seeing an iframe saying “To protect your security, embed.documentcloud.org will not allow Tor Browser to display the page if another site has embedded it.” But I assume it was working for Mike, or else why would it have been posted like that?

TKnarr (profile) says:

This isn't a problem, it's a requirement

Here’s the problem: a surprise appearance of the “Goatse” image, which involves a graphic picture of a man’s stretched out posterior, does as much to punish visitors to the site as the site itself.

This isn’t a problem, it’s a requirement. The only way to punish Site X for doing problematic things is to punish it’s users. It’s users are the only people who can put pressure on it to change it’s ways. Everybody else, why should Site X care about their complaints seeing as not responding to those complaints isn’t going to cost Site X in any meaningful way. It’s only when their own users start complaining and/or taking their business/visits elsewhere that Site X feels any impact.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Also isn’t the “think of the children” argument one Techdirt regularly rallies against?

Did you somehow miss the part where he wrote that he avoids “But think of the children” arguments generally?

The “But think of the children!” meme is a meme because it’s used as an excuse for ridiculous things. Suggesting that it may be a good idea to avoid exposing children to goatse is not ridiculous.

Or does that only apply when trying to argue that children having access to pornography is a human right?

Please cite the article where TD have argued that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I am no fan of what these sites do, and will generally agree with that statement.

However, unless it’s proven that the dev has done a simple block and redirect, the term Ars Technica has used (“stealth attack”) implies that the dev has used one of the many stealth attacks possible to inject code or media and…

We do live in an age where devs have embedded a crypto miner into games.

Again, I’m no fan of stealing people’s hard work, and am generally in agreement.

Anonymous Coward says:

This made me angrier than it should have

Well, anger is rarely a good advisor.

Now, if this one request that returns the one-should-no-say-the-word, enough to shock one person (preferably an adult instead of a child that would having nightmares for days even if he doesn’t understand what the infamous image is…) and so reporting to the website that would remove the game, it could be “fine”.

Now, since the people that click on the first search engine result to play a game are often the laziest, the creator may have sadly to put more of theses images.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Oh but the childrens!!!

Consider for a moment how much self control a child you would worry about has, now give them 42 million popups offering all sorts of cool things…
Enjoy the malware!

Its not nice, but if these scumbags weren’t stealing someone elses thing it would never happen.

People always want to sometimes blame the maker, and absolve the actual bad actor… (see every fscking lawsuit trying to over turn 230 because corporations have a larger duty than their parents to monitor and protect their child)

I am reminded of a threat I saw either on Twatter or Mastodon… company decided to try to phish and employee on their personal phone, employee thought it was real hackers, employee deployed goatse, HR called all flustered, employee suggested they not use his personal phone for their testing.

I mean it was goatse, its not like it was 1 guy 1 jar, 2 girls 1 cup, or any of them thousands of video being streamed into our homes on the nightly news.

LostInLoDOS (profile) says:

And yet

Somewhere along the way everyone became sensitive and fragile.
This has the dual roll of trolling the site that did this, AND pushing users away from that site, even if he lost a few players in his method.

This is the artist’s choice for expression. If you don’t like it, move on.
This is nothing new, mind you.
We have a full maker who uploaded a variation of their film to pirate sites that had a few moments of film and then a masturbation session.
We’ve had videos that were pictures of scrotum masquerade as movies.

It’s childish, sure. But it makes a point.

Christenson says:

Re: Re: Re: Curdled love...

What you are seeing is the distinction between legality and morals. It’s an anti-social thing to copy this game in this way, and it’s a social response being discussed. Will it work? Does it work? YMMV.

Would a more loving copy have brought a different response? almost certainly!

By the time someone gets the law involved, we are all the poorer by 3 to 5 years and a hundred grand or three, so copyright here is a huge negative-sum game.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...