351–360 of 464 posts
I would argue showing nonconsentual explicit imagery is worse than iframing someomes app. Just show a non nsfw troll meme or block it outright.
The parasitic website is displaying the image. No iframe, no image.
Ah, like the good old days when people "hot-linked" your images and you would replace them :)
Once, out of the kindness of my foolish heart, I ran a server with a lot of great sound effects for all and sundry to download. Eventually the bandwidth was getting hammered by a huge number of leechers seemingly from some apps that had simply hard-linked to the resources. After replacing said resources [0] they soon ceased but not without a slew of abusive and entitled emails demanding I restore the SFX. Oh fun time…
> simply hard-linked to the resources It's fairly surprising to see that approach from pretty large brands/companies. Some Indian ISPs are kinda notorious in that they'll just link to huge image files on third-party sites and just let their 300 million customers hammer the poor site into the ground. I guess it saves them bandwidth, but they also run a huge risk of pissing someone off and have that asset replaced by s…
Given that Eternal September remains a thing to this day, I wonder if that remains the case?
As for Google Bot being well behaved - I'm glad to hear that this has changed because at the turn of the century (which is the last time I dipped my toe in to self hosting) it certainly wasn't well behaved in the slightest and it would ruthlessly crawl away, happily ignoring any robots.txt limitations applied.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Devil's advocate: OPs approach is a form of inoculation against the ad-powered Internet. The experience may not be pleasant, but drives the right message and quite memorably so.
100%, and not just as devil's advocate. Let the punishment fit the crime. My sympathies are entirely on the side of the game's author. It's just an obscene image -- the "collateral damage" in this case is perfectly acceptable and imo fair because it damages the brands of the illegal hosters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This blog is now STATELESS. The entire post is contained in the URL that you are visiting now. All my "blog" is now is a hard-coded main page that contains links to posts I claim authorship of. Of course the entire post is contained in each of these links. https://joshcsimmons.com/post/H4sIAAAAAAAA%2F3xV227cRgx911cQ...
hm... https://joshcsimmons.com/post/H4sIAA6yLmUA/wVAwQnFIAxd5ZGL7c...
Just keep in mind some kids might be playing these games. So while it might be satisfying to stick it to the sites that are stealing your code, you might traumatize a child.
Those children over there… sending each other lemonparty (oh wait that was us)
Nah the kids now are watching cartel and Ukraine videos while going “bruh on god based uhuhuh”
Absolute madman encoding the article in the URL like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> simply hard-linked to the resources It's fairly surprising to see that approach from pretty large brands/companies. Some Indian ISPs are kinda notorious in that they'll just link to huge image files on third-party sites and just let their 300 million customers hammer the poor site into the ground. I guess it saves them bandwidth, but they also run a huge risk of pissing someone off and have that asset replaced by s…
The isps can pretty easily set up a cache for things that are popular. There was a time when I worked for an ISP consultancy, where Netflix would literally give ISPs a prebuilt cache server iirc for free, and that was a win win for everyone. I shouldn’t be surprised that some shitty isp thinks it’s easier to hard link, but making a cache isn’t that hard.
And it's much harder now to have a caching server because everything is HTTPS, so you have to coordinate with both ends to make it work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
agreed - it for sure would have been easier/cleaner/safer to just show a message that said "please play the official game on whatever.com"
It is not this developer's job to parent someone's kids. It is a parent's responsibility to make sure their child only gets access to the appropriate websites when they are young.
Look, RJ Reynolds was perfectly within their rights to market cigarettes to young children, and shops were within their rights to sell to young children. It’s not their job to parent children.
And if I want to open up a strip club across the street from the neighborhood public school, why should I be prevented by zoning laws? It’s not my responsibility to parent someone else's kids.
I found out because my host emailed me saying I had hit my bandwidth quota for the month... 2 days into said month. So digging through logs I found the biggest offenders, there were forums where people linked just about every image I had.
A little htaccess magic later, any request that came from a non-allowist referer was instead served a rather crude message I quickly put together in MS paint.
No one contacted me about it, but it was amusing watching these threads where people were getting upset when they thought they were going to see funny owl pics.