[danpalmer]

Doing this as a browser extension is one thing, but selling an interface to Instagram and YouTube sounds like it's very risky.

What's your basis for thinking this will work long term? I see you're selling yearly or lifetime subscriptions, suggesting you think the product can exist. There have been many attempts at this in the past that have been taken down, why is Dull different?

[userbinator]

In the same vein as adblocking, the fundamental question here is, does a service have the right to control how you DON'T use their service? Are you legally obligated to be mentally influenced by adverts and cannot close your eyes or look away?

I'd love to see the EFF or similar take on Big (Ad)tech and settle this in court.

They've gone after youtube-dl and lost, Invidious is still there, etc.

A somewhat related legal case from long ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush-A-Phone_v._United_States

[altmanaltman]

It might not be illegal (criminal) to use a tool like Dull or an ad-blocker, but it is almost certainly a violation of the platform tos. This means the platform (Instagram/YouTube) can legally ban your account or block your IP address for using such tools, even if they can't successfully sue the tool's creator in court.

[trinix912]

Given how broad the CFAA is, Instagram/YouTube could just try framing it as accessing their systems without proper permission, as the ToS disallow such usage.

[joshmn]

In my vast personal experience, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 is the most absurdly vague law in existence.

[walletdrainer]

This is disinformation. IG/Youtube will not even consider doing that.

The wording is telling:

> Instagram/YouTube could just try …

Yes, of course they can try anything. That statement is pretty much always going to be true regardless of what you replace the … with.

[trinix912]

How can you be sure that they “will not even consider” doing that? (That’s a disinformation from your side!)

If this app were to gain traction and start to be seen as a real problem by IG/YT, they would have all legal grounds to act. They can totally sue the app creator and they would very likely win the case under the CFAA.

How exactly is this disinformation?

It is speculative, but calling it disinformation is dishonest, especially since you then presented your completely unargumented claim that they somehow won’t even consider it. It is totally in the realm of possibilities and hence IMO something to keep in mind when considering selling this sort of app/service.

[walletdrainer]

It’s something the US Supreme Court has explicitly rejected.

[heisenbit]

The problem (or not depending on POV) is that TOS are subject to legal constraints. As the dominant platform YT in a critical service area needs to maneuver carefully.

[squigz]

I would much prefer that over them trying to dictate what I can or can't do on my own PC.

[nashashmi]

Adblocking is an extension that is not necessarily paid for.

Providing a paid interface to a service is very different. You might be taking the browser only part of it and combining it with an extension and selling it as a product. To me that is a new interface.

[qq66]

Why does it have to work long term? Claude Code probably built it in 2 hours. Sell it for as long as it works. If it provides some value to some people during that time, good for them.

[latexr]

What a rotten state of affairs that we’re now openly suggesting producing garbage with the least effort possible and selling it until caught. We used to criticise those who did that, calling them spammers and scammers and worse. Now, “telling some LLM to take a dump and trying to sell it to some chumps without a sense of smell” is viewed as a smart business model. Anything for an extra buck.

[niek_pas]

Yup. The fast food philosophy has entered the software development world. Produce cheaply, don't think too much, shove it down your throat, move on.

[qq66]

Why is it garbage? If you want something to block YouTube shorts, here's something that does it. It won't work forever, but you won't pay forever. Not all software needs to be high-craft and high-quality. Sometimes it can be just something a guy sells you off the back of his truck.

[latexr]

> Why is it garbage?

You misunderstood. I’m not criticising this specific software, I’m criticising the attitude suggested by the parent comment. It was a general commentary, it has nothing to do with this particular app, which I have no idea if it was built that way.

[duskdozer]

Maybe I'm misreading but the parent doesn't seem to be suggesting it as good but asking sarcastically. And yeah, the site has all the LLM-hallmarks.

Anything that's a service and has a single-payment "lifetime subscription" is immediately suspect.

[kasparnoor]

Lifetime payment was highly requested by users (including existing users), since they have subscription fatigue. Since I use the app myself every day to reduce screentime myself I'm extremely motivated to fix every bug and make the UX as seamless as possible.

[AlexeyBelov]

> are now openly suggesting producing garbage with the least effort possible and selling it until caught

Well, this is a VC adjacent forum, so...

[gu009]

> Sell it for as long as it works.

I agree with this in principle, but this seems conceptually at odds with selling lifetime licenses (which this product does). The lifetime license option reads like a statement of intention that they'll be around for a long time, but when the TOS of the underlying services come into play as they do here, offering (or buying) a lifetime license seems like a gamble.

[jstummbillig]

How about: The creator is trying to make some money and is not super concerned with the long view. For-profit activist software.

[trinix912]

It's still questionably legal (at least here in Europe) to sell a yearly subscription for something and then have it stop working halfway through the year.

They should probably care about not getting sued so easily.

[duskdozer]

> [for the] lifetime [of the current version of the service]

>unlimited data [up to a certain limit]

> ~~no~~ gimmicks

I'm sure I'm missing some

[scary-size]

Interesting perspective! Are we in the „fast fashion“ period of software now?

[shlewis]

Selling it is one thing. Making it a subscription is just crazy to me.

[qq66]

Isn't making it a subscription more honest? Don't pay an outright price for this, just pay monthly until it stops working

[max8539]

It probably will require constant support to keep filtration working. These big companies don’t like content cutters at all.

[charcircuit]

If it's providing value to the user month to month then it makes sense to be a subscription. Lifetime license are racing to the bottom for ongoing value.

[kasparnoor]

Fair question. The honest answer is I don't know if Instagram or YouTube will try to shut this down. They haven't so far, but that doesn't mean they won't. They can try to come after me:) But seems like they are the ones losing in court currently for making their own apps so addicting. Wouldn't be a good look to come after such apps.

The subscription model exists partly because of this — if it stops working, you stop paying. The lifetime option is a bet on my part that I can keep maintaining it. If I can't, that's on me. But since this is an app I use daily myself I am extremely motivated to fix every bug and keep the app excellent and all filters working.

[rglullis]

> What's your basis for thinking this will work long term?

Even if this approach doesn't work long term, the important thing is to establish product-market fit, and to get enough people committed to the idea that your product is their gateway out of the closed platforms.

I can think of at least three different ways to set up a system that can go around the API restrictions and re-serve the data to a different client that the user can control. But if I go and implement any of those, someone will try it and give up on my product until that approach gets shut down.

By selling lifetime subscriptions, the users get invested in the success of the product as well and they will be more willing to fight the restrictions that the companies impose with you.

[buzzerbetrayed]

Why wouldn’t making a paid web browser be legal?

[danpalmer]

Obviously it isn't, but also obviously: this isn't a web browser in anything but technical implementation. It's a packaged, sold, interface to a proprietary service with a set of T&Cs that they are free to enforce.

Also every single one of these that I've seen before has fallen down in the same way. Chat apps that embed Facebook, third party YouTube viewer for Apple's VR headset, various other third party Instagram apps, etc.

[Gigachad]

Even if it is legal, meta and google will just block you from accessing the service.

[nslsm]

How?

[danpalmer]

I can't tell if this is a good faith question, but in the interests of good discussion, there are many ways they can do this. Technical solutions include blocking the user agent, blocking request patterns, client-side feature detection, client-side attestation, but importantly they are not limited to technical solutions, there are also things like cease and desist letters, breaches of contracts, pressure on the software distributors, lawsuits.

This is no judgement of whether these are the steps they might take, or whether they would be right in doing so, I want to remain neutral on this. But I would point again to the many instances of things like this happening in the past.

[nslsm]

Personally I think the technical solutions are unrealistic, given this is nothing but a safari wrapper.

Legal methods may be more successful.

[duskdozer]

Detect usage patterns of normal users vs these, and then block access. Ultimately comes down to the companies' ability to throw however many devs at thwarting this one as makes sense for them.

Just as an example I remember, Facebook sponsored posts would be labeled, but if you dug into the HTML, what you'd get was random permutations or junk added to the label, like SSpoSnoSsorReD or something, and they'd use complicated overlays or other things to get the label to be visible. So you wouldn't just be able to use a simple easy rule.

[kasparnoor]

There is a reason why Meta does not block ad blockers. It's costlier for them to lose users, even if they don't earn ad revenue off them.

[iugtmkbdfil834]

Like most things.. it is a cat and mouse game dependent on how heavily they believe their revenue could be impacted. I am not sure why you think either of those corporates would have a problem of banning individual users, who are only suspected based on the app signature..

[vakrdotme]

I agree on this, cat and mouse game

[jatins]

You can't have extensions in mobile browsers, right? While this seems like it targets mobile users.

[foopod]

Not in Chrome or iOS probably. But Firefox for Android supports extensions.

[Y444]

Safari on iOS supports extensions

[wormpilled]

If anyone pays for this they deserve to be scammed.

[01284a7e]

I don't think it's a scam at all. Will it be around in a week? Probably not. But it's not a scam.

[kasparnoor]

1) it's already been live for about a month, so definetly not a week long project 2) I use the app myself every day to reduce screentime so I'm highly motivated to keep the app up to date. When the platforms change DOM elements, or try to distrupt Dull from working I am also disrupted, so I work quickly to fix all bugs 3) There is a 7 day free trial for anyone to test out if it's a "scam". It's not.

[bryanrasmussen]

a funny reading - if anyone pays for something that won't be around in a week they deserve to be scammed by some scammer.

that said it seems somewhat close to a scam.

but having said those things I'll just note here, knowing you were not the original poster, that people do not in any way deserve to be scammed because they fall for easy to spot scams.