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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Allows me to use Instagram messages without the app - as well as (Facebook/meta) Messenger (and others).
I do wish they had a "support us" subscription tier, as I think the base price is a little steep - and I don't really need any of the paid features. Maybe something around the third or quarter the price.
I would hope that would lead to more users subscribing.
Sounds like a good project, I also hate that Instagram pushes algorithm-driven content into your face everywhere without any options to turn it off, it's good to fight against these toxic dark design patterns.
Can also recommend using Instagram with the IGPlus web extension. Or for a native Android version there's also DFinstagram.
For YouTube there are many web extensions as well. On Android the YouTube ReVanced patch is really good though.
For YouTube, I've used it in Safari on iOS for a while with UnTrap for YouTube that lets you disable short[1]. On desktop, a uBlock origin filter works[2].
I built some time ago ScrollGuard (https://scrollguard.app) that tackles this same problem from two different angles for Android and iOS.
On Android has been on the Play Store for over a year. Instead of injecting CSS/JS into a webview, it uses Android's AccessibilityService to detect reels/shorts directly in the native apps and block them. You keep using Instagram, YouTube, etc. normally as native apps, no WebView.
On iOS: It uses Content Blockers. The rules run at the WebKit level with zero data access, the extension literally cannot see what you browse, it just receives the filter rules and applies them. No JS injection, no network requests. It also has an app redirection feature: you set up an iOS Shortcut so that when you tap the native Instagram/YouTube app, it automatically opens the filtered web version with all the blocking rules applied. So you never accidentally land in the native app and you can keep the native app for notifications.
Just installed... this is super interesting. Shorts are my kryptonite and I've been looking for something that gives me YouTube without the crap for a while now!
BTW... just so you know, you have to uninstall the official app otherwise YouTube just redirects you.
Does anyone know if the "Show Fewer Shorts" thing on YouTube actually does anything? I choose that every time it gives me shorts and as far as I can tell the frequency isn't being decreased at all.
Seeing all the reactions here, I can tell apart those of us who grew up in the wild west of the internet and those unfortunate to grow up in a vendor controlled, app world.
Brave browser also has the ability to disable YouTube shorts and “distracting” ui elements like related videos in their settings.
Works great on desktop/ios
I've been using News Feed Eradicator[0], a Firefox/Chrome extension, for the same purpose and it's been working really well. For most sites you can configure what should vs. should not be "eradicated".
What does this have that Youtube Vanced/Revanced doesn't already do for the cost of about half an hour of your time messing with sideloading and getting a clean youtube APK file? I already block all shorts through that. It's not perfect, but you admit you're playing whack-a-mole with the filtering just the same as the Revanced devs.
Man, the idea is great, theoretically the human nature would permit this needn't exist, but alas. The concept is awesome, but what are the long term implications of this I mean, in regards to implementation?
123 comments
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
https://www.beeper.com/
Allows me to use Instagram messages without the app - as well as (Facebook/meta) Messenger (and others).
I do wish they had a "support us" subscription tier, as I think the base price is a little steep - and I don't really need any of the paid features. Maybe something around the third or quarter the price.
I would hope that would lead to more users subscribing.
Can also recommend using Instagram with the IGPlus web extension. Or for a native Android version there's also DFinstagram.
For YouTube there are many web extensions as well. On Android the YouTube ReVanced patch is really good though.
IGPlus: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/igplus-extens...
DFinstagram: https://www.distractionfreeapps.com
[1]: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/untrap-for-youtube/id163743805...
[2]: https://github.com/i5heu/ublock-hide-yt-shorts
On Android has been on the Play Store for over a year. Instead of injecting CSS/JS into a webview, it uses Android's AccessibilityService to detect reels/shorts directly in the native apps and block them. You keep using Instagram, YouTube, etc. normally as native apps, no WebView.
On iOS: It uses Content Blockers. The rules run at the WebKit level with zero data access, the extension literally cannot see what you browse, it just receives the filter rules and applies them. No JS injection, no network requests. It also has an app redirection feature: you set up an iOS Shortcut so that when you tap the native Instagram/YouTube app, it automatically opens the filtered web version with all the blocking rules applied. So you never accidentally land in the native app and you can keep the native app for notifications.
Meanwhile I've had a uBlock Origin list selected since before I can remember and never see shorts or reels or anything else I don't want to.
For free.
We've really lost something with everything being mobile apps...
> I kept deleting and redownloading Instagram because I couldn't stop watching Reels but needed the app for DMs.
Using Instagram only for DMs just means you shouldn't be using it.
BTW... just so you know, you have to uninstall the official app otherwise YouTube just redirects you.
[0]: https://github.com/jordwest/news-feed-eradicator
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/remove-youtube-shor...
Though I wonder if blocking the content only treats the symptom. The real problem is the shortened attention span.
Could also be really useful for parents trying to manage screen time for their kids.