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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
Well, you don't even have to fight these patterns or these apps
Just stop using these stupid apps overall. 95% of the content you find on them is useless. And today, a staggering amount of content is also fake AI crap. Save your sanity and time and remove these apps.
Yes, I think it's good to uninstall these apps from time to time as well.
Deleting and never using them again doesn't work for everyone though. For me it's useful to stay in contact with people, I also use them to promote work as well as find cool events.
Android has good patches for everything except X thanks to Elon's meddling. There's a cumbersome workaround but I'm just choosing to use it within brave, or other PWAs offerings.
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].
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
Unfortunately not really an option in a lot of business. There's a ton of services where Instagram is both your portfolio and an important first point of contact.
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.
It doesn't seem to work for even a week though. In fact I'm not sure it lasts even a day; I feel like I'll do "show fewer shorts" and still see a bunch of shorts recommendations a few hours later.
I wish they would just have a "don't show shorts at all" option.
Such a scummy UX pattern, a long with the "not right now" or "maybe later" stuff.
The argument I have heard is that a user might forget they disabled the feature, but perhaps they actually wanted it. Apparently we're all too stupid to use a Settings section.
I am definitely seeing a dichotomy in software, there is software that accepts you have your own brain cells capable of operating the software. Then there is the software that expects, hopes even, that you only spark enough neurons together when the jolt of a video finishing rattles your brain, enough to scroll to the next one.
We should stop using the dumb software, lest we be trained to be dumb too.
My favourite recent discovery is Assistive Access in the iOS Accessibility settings. You pick the apps you want access to (and set privacy permissions), then when you launch the mode your iPhone only shows those apps.
If you feel a sudden compulsion to access something you didn't allow yourself, you have to exit the mode, which takes as long as a reboot.
There are quite a few limitations of this mode, so it won't be for everyone (or maybe anyone on here?) but it's a pretty good detox. A lot stronger than screentime restrictions.
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?
On firefox i use unhook for youtube. solves the shorts issue but im sure a lot of people would be less okay with what i prefer youtube to be, a search bar with nothing else.
If someone is already sold on the idea of uninstalling the Instagram app and using something else to access Instagram, how is it better to install a different app, vs. using the already-installed browser, with an extension?
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?
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.
> 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.
How about: The creator is trying to make some money and is not super concerned with the long view. For-profit activist software.
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.
Interesting perspective! Are we in the „fast fashion“ period of software now?
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
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.
Selling it is one thing. Making it a subscription is just crazy to me.
It probably will require constant support to keep filtration working. These big companies don’t like content cutters at all.
Isn't making it a subscription more honest? Don't pay an outright price for this, just pay monthly until it stops working
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.
If anyone pays for this they deserve to be scammed.
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.
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.
You can't have extensions in mobile browsers, right? While this seems like it targets mobile users.
Not in Chrome or iOS probably. But Firefox for Android supports extensions.
Safari on iOS supports extensions
Why wouldn’t making a paid web browser be legal?
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.
Even if it is legal, meta and google will just block you from accessing the service.
How?
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.
Personally I think the technical solutions are unrealistic, given this is nothing but a safari wrapper.
Legal methods may be more successful.
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..
I agree on this, cat and mouse game
Not sure what this app does for Facebook - but I'm a quite happy user of:
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.
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.
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.
IGPlus: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/igplus-extens...
DFinstagram: https://www.distractionfreeapps.com
Well, you don't even have to fight these patterns or these apps
Just stop using these stupid apps overall. 95% of the content you find on them is useless. And today, a staggering amount of content is also fake AI crap. Save your sanity and time and remove these apps.
Yes, I think it's good to uninstall these apps from time to time as well.
Deleting and never using them again doesn't work for everyone though. For me it's useful to stay in contact with people, I also use them to promote work as well as find cool events.
>> I also use them to promote work as well as find cool events.
- like everyone else, hence the algo-driven push to keep you engaged and scrolling.
I’ve gone cold turkey to preserve my mental health, and it’s been amazing. FB & IG completely screwed my dopamine / reward cycle.
I only miss FB marketplace. Rest, I’m crushing it.
Android has good patches for everything except X thanks to Elon's meddling. There's a cumbersome workaround but I'm just choosing to use it within brave, or other PWAs offerings.
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].
[1]: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/untrap-for-youtube/id163743805...
[2]: https://github.com/i5heu/ublock-hide-yt-shorts
Untrap is solid. For Firefox I use Unhook
Congratulations on creating a slightly healthier cigarette.
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 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.
Unfortunately not really an option in a lot of business. There's a ton of services where Instagram is both your portfolio and an important first point of contact.
I made a similar app, it’s called “Only DMs” free on the app store :)
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.
I think it lasts for about a month.
It doesn't seem to work for even a week though. In fact I'm not sure it lasts even a day; I feel like I'll do "show fewer shorts" and still see a bunch of shorts recommendations a few hours later.
I wish they would just have a "don't show shorts at all" option.
Such a scummy UX pattern, a long with the "not right now" or "maybe later" stuff.
The argument I have heard is that a user might forget they disabled the feature, but perhaps they actually wanted it. Apparently we're all too stupid to use a Settings section.
I am definitely seeing a dichotomy in software, there is software that accepts you have your own brain cells capable of operating the software. Then there is the software that expects, hopes even, that you only spark enough neurons together when the jolt of a video finishing rattles your brain, enough to scroll to the next one.
We should stop using the dumb software, lest we be trained to be dumb too.
The fact that someone had to build a separate app just to get the version of Instagram from 5 years ago says a lot.
I hate how we have bundled useful things alongside addiction building media. It’s like if supermarkets had drugs next to the vegetables.
You can’t just leave your phone at home because you need it to 2FA at work or maps. But then you end up scrolling shorts and other junk.
My favourite recent discovery is Assistive Access in the iOS Accessibility settings. You pick the apps you want access to (and set privacy permissions), then when you launch the mode your iPhone only shows those apps.
If you feel a sudden compulsion to access something you didn't allow yourself, you have to exit the mode, which takes as long as a reboot.
There are quite a few limitations of this mode, so it won't be for everyone (or maybe anyone on here?) but it's a pretty good detox. A lot stronger than screentime restrictions.
Well supermarkets do have high-sugar ultraprocessed snacks right next to the check-out counter, so I think your analogy is spot on.
Now I just need to vibecode a plugin for my smart glasses to filter out those snacks.
> But then you end up scrolling shorts and other junk.
I do not, because I didn’t install any drugs next to the vegetables.
i like this idea, especially for the parent who dont want their kids to watch reels/shorts of the instagram and youtube apps.
Smart approach using MutationObserver to catch dynamically loaded content.
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.
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?
How does your system differ from an extension like this?
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/remove-youtube-shor...
On firefox i use unhook for youtube. solves the shorts issue but im sure a lot of people would be less okay with what i prefer youtube to be, a search bar with nothing else.
Free for 3 days. $4 a month.
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 will never pay to not access apps on my phone. On iOS i use ublock origin and userscripts to block all shorts and ads.
This could have been Safari Extension
Instagram is not predominantly used on Safari, so Safari doesn't sound like the best place to implement something like this.
But this is a web wrapper, same experience but in a container with no further customization allowed
The use case for this app (Dull):
1. Uninstall Instagram
2. Install Dull
3. Use Instagram via Dull
The use case for a Safari extension:
1. Uninstall Instagram
2. Install the Safari extension
3. Use Instagram via Safari
Am I missing something that is obviously better about Dull (which couldn't be replicated by a Safari extension)?
(P.S. this is not meant to discourage the developer of Dull; I like the idea and your implementation seems really good.)
If someone is already sold on the idea of uninstalling the Instagram app and using something else to access Instagram, how is it better to install a different app, vs. using the already-installed browser, with an extension?
Isn’t this just WebKit with some user scripts anyway?
please add wechat (without short videos)
really interesting app :)
Is this a way to use FB marketplace and groups without all the other bullshit?!
I’m sold