| ▲ | danpalmer 8 hours ago |
| 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 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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 |
|
| ▲ | qq66 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | gu009 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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 an hour ago | parent [-] | | I propose the following: The creator is trying to make some money and is not super concerned with sustainability of the product or providing the product long-term. For-profit activist software. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | shlewis 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Selling it is one thing. Making it a subscription is just crazy to me. |
| |
| ▲ | qq66 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Isn't making it a subscription more honest? Don't pay an outright price for this, just pay monthly until it stops working | |
| ▲ | charcircuit an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | wormpilled 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If anyone pays for this they deserve to be scammed. |
| |
| ▲ | 01284a7e 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | bryanrasmussen 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jatins 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You can't have extensions in mobile browsers, right? While this seems like it targets mobile users. |
| |
| ▲ | foopod 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not in Chrome or iOS probably. But Firefox for Android supports extensions. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | buzzerbetrayed 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Why wouldn’t making a paid web browser be legal? |
| |
| ▲ | danpalmer 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Even if it is legal, meta and google will just block you from accessing the service. | | |
| ▲ | nslsm 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | How? | | |
| ▲ | danpalmer 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | iugtmkbdfil834 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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.. | | |
|
|
|
