[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.