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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
One thing I like is the possibility to turn off notifications on other apps - and then dms become/remain push (beeper) other SoMe crap become pull (check when actively opening the app).
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].
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.
The app works great, but my god the dark patterns are wildly aggressive. I was very close to uninstalling when setting up YouTube because a pricing page pops up that gives no free option, but if you click the hidden x on the top left you can continue as a free user. I like the functionality (finally restricted my YouTube to subscriptions only), but the app feels super scummy. I’d be more inclined to pay $2/mo if it didn’t seem sketchy.
the problem isn't that these apps are engaging. it's that the engagement has no nutritional value. scrolling reels is the digital equivalent of eating sugar, leaving you emptier than when you started. the apps that actually work for people long-term are the ones where the engagement is the byproduct of something real happening. filtering out the sugar doesn't fix the diet.
I don't make the choice of how individuals in my social circle uses to communicate. Giving up being in contact with some of my friends/acquaintances is too bad a trade-off.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you! I am shipping the YouTube redirect issue in the next update. Currently you can circumvent it by going back to dull and trying again after being redirected, but it's super annoying and I will fix!
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.
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.
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.
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?
My biggest wish was that you could disable reels/shorts, etc on the native apps. But unless there is some regulation, it won't happen. I actually made a citizen's suggestion to EU some time ago, but that did not pan out.
A Safari extension could handle some of it, but Dull also does usage tracking, time limits, quiet hours, and grayscale mode which all need to live at the app level. The filtering itself could be an extension, but the broader goal is reducing how much time you spend there, not just hiding elements. For example we added a feature in today's update that let's you choose what is the intention of opening app. Like if intention is to open DMs then you open just to DMs. Another way of reducing distractions.
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?
There's also time limits, challenges before opening apps to create fiction, quiet hours so u don't scroll at night, usage tracking, opening with intention so it asks what u wanna do in the app, and then let's u for example only stay in DM's tab.
Interesting request. I haven't looked into WeChat's web version but I'll check if the short video content is filterable. No promises but noted. We've also gotten requests for Snapchat and TikTok.
Yeah, Facebook through Dull gives you marketplace and groups without the news feed and suggested content. It's probably the cleanest version of Facebook I've used in years.
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.
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.
In my vast personal experience, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 is the most absurdly vague law in existence.
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.
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.
It’s something the US Supreme Court has explicitly rejected.
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.
I would much prefer that over them trying to dictate what I can or can't do on my own PC.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> are now openly suggesting producing garbage with the least effort possible and selling it until caught
Well, this is a VC adjacent forum, so...
> 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.
> [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
Interesting perspective! Are we in the „fast fashion“ period of software now?
Selling it is one thing. Making it a subscription is just crazy to me.
Isn't making it a subscription more honest? Don't pay an outright price for this, just pay monthly until it stops working
It probably will require constant support to keep filtration working. These big companies don’t like content cutters at all.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Beeper is a good solution. To bad I still have Instagram next to it and prefer it because my friends send me reels anyway
One thing I like is the possibility to turn off notifications on other apps - and then dms become/remain push (beeper) other SoMe crap become pull (check when actively opening the app).
This seems like a really cool solution! Does it adhere to TOS of the services?
how does beeper handles things like discord threads/channels etc? and rich previews of stuff like links, embeds, and whatnot? I'm curious about it!
Discord is the only app I still run with notifications enabled along with beeper - beeper handle dms, discord handle the rest.
Allows me to check only beeper for dms across services - and keep discord for channels etc.
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.
I uninstalled the app and use a bookmark to https://www.instagram.com/?variant=following
It’s an ad-free chronological feed of posts only from accounts I follow.
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
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.
The app works great, but my god the dark patterns are wildly aggressive. I was very close to uninstalling when setting up YouTube because a pricing page pops up that gives no free option, but if you click the hidden x on the top left you can continue as a free user. I like the functionality (finally restricted my YouTube to subscriptions only), but the app feels super scummy. I’d be more inclined to pay $2/mo if it didn’t seem sketchy.
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...
Congratulations on creating a slightly healthier cigarette.
the problem isn't that these apps are engaging. it's that the engagement has no nutritional value. scrolling reels is the digital equivalent of eating sugar, leaving you emptier than when you started. the apps that actually work for people long-term are the ones where the engagement is the byproduct of something real happening. filtering out the sugar doesn't fix the diet.
Thanks! If one can't completely quit cigarettes, I'd prefer they smoke on a healthier one.
> 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.
I don't make the choice of how individuals in my social circle uses to communicate. Giving up being in contact with some of my friends/acquaintances is too bad a trade-off.
Your friends don't have WhatsApp or Telegram?
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 :)
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.
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.
Thank you! I am shipping the YouTube redirect issue in the next update. Currently you can circumvent it by going back to dull and trying again after being redirected, but it's super annoying and I will fix!
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.
I haven't even seen this option? Where is it
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".
[0]: https://github.com/jordwest/news-feed-eradicator
Recently I searched for YouTube without shorts for Android. And didn't end up with a reasonable product. I think there is a market for Android as well
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.
Instagram and Facebook support for once
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.
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?
Looks interesting but would never ever pay for this. I think an approach to redirect reels time to something else would more beneifical.
Dark UI pattern on install. Hits you with sub screen after prompting user for preferences. Uninstalled immediately.
I really like the YouTube app to be honest and I really dislike the web version, so to me it does not work.
My biggest wish was that you could disable reels/shorts, etc on the native apps. But unless there is some regulation, it won't happen. I actually made a citizen's suggestion to EU some time ago, but that did not pan out.
This could have been Safari Extension
A Safari extension could handle some of it, but Dull also does usage tracking, time limits, quiet hours, and grayscale mode which all need to live at the app level. The filtering itself could be an extension, but the broader goal is reducing how much time you spend there, not just hiding elements. For example we added a feature in today's update that let's you choose what is the intention of opening app. Like if intention is to open DMs then you open just to DMs. Another way of reducing distractions.
Instagram is not predominantly used on Safari, so Safari doesn't sound like the best place to implement something like this.
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?
But this is a web wrapper, same experience but in a container with no further customization allowed
I am not thinking about anything else but the Idea is soo cool man
how did you literally "remove" the reels from the instagram? claude code or something?
i like this idea, especially for the parent who dont want their kids to watch reels/shorts of the instagram and youtube 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.
Why would I pay for a pwa with some elements blocked?
There's also time limits, challenges before opening apps to create fiction, quiet hours so u don't scroll at night, usage tracking, opening with intention so it asks what u wanna do in the app, and then let's u for example only stay in DM's tab.
please add wechat (without short videos)
Interesting request. I haven't looked into WeChat's web version but I'll check if the short video content is filterable. No promises but noted. We've also gotten requests for Snapchat and TikTok.
really interesting app :)
Thank you so much!
Is this a way to use FB marketplace and groups without all the other bullshit?!
I’m sold
Yeah, Facebook through Dull gives you marketplace and groups without the news feed and suggested content. It's probably the cleanest version of Facebook I've used in years.