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: goatse, josh simmons, piracy, sqword, trolling


Comments on “Developer Of Free Web Game Messes With Sites Embedding His Game With Goatse Image”
I don’t see a problem here. I don’t care if the customers of the scum bags see it. If they don’t want to see it, they can go to the real site.
Re:
What if someone is looking to play a game, and doesn’t realize the site they’re on has pirated anything?
Re: Re:
Then they have learned an important life lesson.
Nah
This is classic. People have been using goatee for this for decades
Don’t fucking steal free content for bullshit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
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.
Re:
But did he steal the goat image?
I am not brave enough to click that link.
Re:
Rule of thumb: if a post even mentions the g* word, click on nothing. NOTHING.
I'm glad...
…that I am old enough to know what “goatse” is without looking it up.
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?
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.
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.
Re:
“What this 9YO really need is a giant gaping prolapsed rectum”
I’m not usre how you thought defending serving goatse to kids was a good strat.
Re: Re:
Welcome to the interbet buddy.
Re: Re:
I saw the images in question some time ago and have more recently seen a prolapsed rectum. The Goatse rectum is not prolapsed, but nice way to prove your lack of an education.
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.
Re:
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.
Re: Re:
Exactly. Seriously, part of the current depression and suicidal issues we hear about are the very fact that we have turned a nation into 2yo dunces.
Ok, seen it, move on. If that traumatised you you have a far bigger problem.
CORS
Isn’t that what CORS (Cross-Origin Resource Sharing) is for?
If someone embeds a site that has that header set, and not to the origin the embedder is using, it’s automatically blocked.
Unless there’s some way to bypass that that I’m not aware of… that seems like the proper solution.
Re: tech
It’s called an iframe.
Re: Re:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but can’t CORS block iframes?
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40866219/how-to-resolve-iframe-cross-domain-issue
Josh Simmons is able to reject Cross-Origin Resource Sharing for the Sqword files and webpages to prevent other websites from embedding the game page using an iframe.
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?
This isn't a problem, it's a requirement
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.
Re:
Also isn’t the “think of the children” argument one Techdirt regularly rallies against? Or does that only apply when trying to argue that children having access to pornography is a human right?
Re: Re:
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.
Please cite the article where TD have argued that.
Oh, I’m so glad he didn’t embed a fucking bitcion/crypto miner or worse in his game instead of edited goatse…
Turning your game into actual malware is NOT the way. Even if you need to spite the thieves.
Re:
“Turning the game into malware” is what the ripoff sites do.
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.
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.
It’s not often that you get to end an article with the words “gaping anuses,” but there you go.
We might still want to say the onus is on these sites…
More like, ANUS, amirite?!?
High five!
Re:
I’m dumb and I apologize.
Re: Re:
i might be dumb too (well, for all sorts of reasons), but as obvious as the joke is, i laughed. It’s funny.
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.
*asks Google
Define G..o…a…t…
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.
That’s hilarious, but i would have just provided the URL to the proper site with a note that you can play it there without ads and who know what else all up in your face and OS.
Or both. Whatever.
Re: Better Response
I think this game maker is onto something…. now all he needs to do is extend it a bit and his game first warn the player: Go to mygame.com! If you ignore, well, then show Mr G.
Of course, that assumes he’s ready for an onslaught from his viral game, which he may not be.
Where are the anti-copyright chuds? They’re usually jumping up and down at the merest implication that companies should not be allowed to profit from other people’s work.
Re:
…hallucinated nobody without incurable degenerative brain rot (aka copyright maximalism), ever.
Re: Re:
“software should not be copyrightable” is a thing I have read multiple times on this very site. If you don’t think software should be copyrightable, then you shouldn’t get upset when someone makes money off software they copied.
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.