291–300 of 464 posts
Ah, I had a similar idea. There were too many bots or vulnerability scanners hitting /wp-admin.php on my blog. It was flooding my access logs with 404s because I don't rock wordpress. Irksome stuff. So I threw up a little 'surprise' for the ahem penetration testers ahem , if you feel brave: https://www.thran.uk/wp-login.php
I run three word games, this stuff happens for all of them. It sucks but I would never do what they did, it's abusive to the people who just googled your game and ended up on the wrong site. I've had teachers and students reach out to me to say they play my game in class every day together. And parents who play with their kids every day, and adult who text their results to each other every day. It sucks if they end u…
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"
Another fun thing to do would be showing an infinite "loading..." indicator and fetch as many resources as possible from the parasitic website in a tight loop with a cachebreaker. That should inflate their bandwidth costs quite a bit.
> The mature and responsible thing to do would have been... You were triggered, and so you lashed out with an attack aimed at bystanders. "mature and responsible" have nothing to do with it. The word is: immoral.
Over the years I've seen so many variations of this. "u mad", "triggered", "seethe", "rent free", etc. I don't know why the internet insists on deriding anyone that reacts strongly to anything. It's something you ought to grow out of after middle school.
I'm all for strong reactions. Heated debate, swift actions, deep self reflection. Yes, all welcome. For example, if OP had password protected his site I would applaud.
But my personal views are:
- strong reactions aren't "justification" to further escalate violence.
- intentionally using that specific image to inflict harm on people is definitely violence.
PS: NSFW in case the casual observer never encountered the horror that was goatse.cx:
NSFW https://web.archive.org/web/20010518002205/http://www.goatse... NSFW
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If one element of the law that you are claiming that he broke is intent to cause distress and he didn’t have that intent, the elements of the crime were not present. This is not debatable as a matter of law; the only question of fact would be “what was the intent?”
Have... have you ever seen Goatse? (If you haven't, please don't look it up just for sake of this and take my word for it) It's the reference example for what a "shock image" is. How in the blazes is the choice of that particular image over practically anything else based on anything but its capacity at causing distress? The blog post both acknowledges it as such, and even says "Let this be a lesson to you", making i…
I think goatse (I arrived on the internet in 1992 or so, so yes, I’m familiar with bothe the giver and the receiver) is somewhat conservative, actually, given the full realm of possibilities. I would be prepared to argue that to a jury in the right jurisdiction. I could convince twelve people who don’t care in New Jersey but probably not Mississippi.
I’d be very surprised if any prosecutor thought they’d have a substantial likelihood of a conviction. There is a very high probability that this immature outburst would not be prosecuted or that it would plead to something like disturbing the peace if anything at all.
Goatse is the internet’s way of saying “you don’t really want to look at this.” Hell, your parenthetical says as much.
(Some among whom are probably children)
Another fun thing to do would be showing an infinite "loading..." indicator and fetch as many resources as possible from the parasitic website in a tight loop with a cachebreaker. That should inflate their bandwidth costs quite a bit.
With the advantage of not showing shocking images to random innocent people
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you argue that, exactly?
Imagine you were distributing my work without permission and in retaliation I emailed you gross-out sexually explicit imagery. That would both be a crime and be unethical by current standards. OP is not emailing people, but it is the same thing: revenge using explicit imagery. Except not only might the people behind the sites see the image but their visitors which probably include minors will too.
If you email them explicit imagery and they automatically forward it, that's on them.
Not a crime, but a little crass in a funny way.