[HN Gopher] Launch HN: Tweeks (YC W25) - Browser extension to de...
___________________________________________________________________
Launch HN: Tweeks (YC W25) - Browser extension to deshittify the
web
Hey HN! We're Jason & Matt and we're building Tweeks
(https://tweeks.io), a browser extension that lets you modify any
website in your browser to add functionality, filter/highlight, re-
theme, reorganize, de-clutter, etc. If you've used
Violentmonkey/Tampermonkey, Tweeks is like a next-generation
userscript manager. Instead of digging through selectors and hand-
writing custom JS/CSS, describe what you want in natural language
and Tweeks plans + generates your edits and applies them. The
modern web is so full of clutter and junk (banners, modals, feeds,
and recommendations you didn't ask for). Even a simple google
search is guarded by multiple ads, an AI overview, a trending
searches module, etc. before you even see the first real blue link.
Every day there's a new Lovable-like product (make it simple to
build your own website/app) or a new agentic browser (AI agents
click around and browse the web for you), but we built Tweeks to
serve the middle ground: most of our time spent on the web is on
someone else's site (not our own), and we don't want to offload
everything to an agentic browser. We want to be able to shape the
entire web to our own preferences as we browse. I spent years
working on recommendation systems and relevance at Pinterest, and
understand how well-meaning recommendations and A/B tests can lead
to website enshittification. No one sets out to make UX worse, but
optimizing for an "average" user is not the same as optimizing for
each individual user. I've also been hacking "page fixers" as long
as I can remember: remove a login wall here, collapse cookie
banners there, add missing filters/highlights (first with
F12/inspect element and eventually graduated to advanced
GreaseMonkey userscripts). Tweeks started as a weekend prototype
that turned simple requests into page edits but unexpectedly grew
into something people kept asking to share. We hope you'll like it
too! How it works: Open the Tweeks extension, type your request
(e.g. "hide cookie banners and add a price/quality score"), and
submit. Upon submission, the page structure is captured, an AI
agent reviews the structure, plans changes, and returns
deterministic transformations (selectors, layout tweaks, styles,
and small scripts) that run locally. Your modifications persist
across page loads and can be enabled/disabled, modified, and
shared. Here are a bunch of one-shot examples from early users:
_Youtube_ : Remove Youtube Shorts. Demo:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aL7i89BdO9o. Try it yourself:
http://tweeks.io/share/script/bcd8bc32b8034b79a78a8564 _Hacker
News_ : Filter posts by title/url or points/comments, modify header
and text size. Demo: http://youtube.com/watch?v=cD5Ei8bMmUk. Try it
yourself: http://tweeks.io/share/script/97e72c6de5c14906a1351abd
(filter), http://tweeks.io/share/script/6f51f96c877a4998bda8e781
(header + text). _LinkedIn_ : Keep track of cool people (extracts
author data and send a POST request to a server). Demo:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WDO4DRXQoTU _Reddit_ : Remove sidebar
and add a countdown timer that shows a blocking modal when time is
up. Demo: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kBIkQ9j_u94. Try it yourself:
http://tweeks.io/share/script/e1daa0c5edd441dca5a150c8 (sidebar),
http://tweeks.io/share/script/c321c9b6018a4221bd06fdab (timer).
_New York Times Games_ : Add a Strands helper that finds all
possible words. Demo: http://youtube.com/watch?v=hJ75jSATg3Q. Try
it yourself: http://tweeks.io/share/script/7a955c910812467eaa36f569
_Theming_ : Retheme Google to be a 1970s CLI terminal. Demo:
http://youtube.com/shorts/V-CG5CbYJb4 (oops sorry a youtube short
snuck back in there). Try it yourself:
http://tweeks.io/share/script/8c8c0953f6984163922c4da7. We just
opened access at https://tweeks.io. It's currently free, but each
use costs tokens so we'll likely need to cap usage to prevent
abuse. We're more interested in early feedback than your money, so
if you manage to hit the cap, message us at contact@trynextbyte.com
or https://discord.gg/WucN6wpJw2, tell us how you're using it/what
features you want next, and we'll happily reset it for you. Btw if
you do anything interesting with it, feel free to make a shareable
link (go to 'Library' and press 'share' after generating) and
include it in the comments below. It's fun to see the different
things people are coming up with! We're rapidly shipping
improvements and would love your feedback and comments. Thanks for
reading!
Author : jmadeano
Score : 138 points
Date : 2025-11-13 16:03 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.tweeks.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.tweeks.io)
| CharlesW wrote:
| https://www.tweeks.io/ "refused to connect", sayeth Chrome.
| Serious question to Tweekers: What is your site built with that
| an HN traffic bump instantly melts it?
| jmadeano wrote:
| uh oh... We do have a bunch of gifs + images on the page that
| are poorly optimized, but that shouldn't matter at this scale.
| I haven't been able to see "refused to connect" on my end.
| Still happening for you?
| CharlesW wrote:
| Yes, but the problem was me -- apologies for the low-value
| post. I have NextDNS configured to block newly-registered
| domains, and this is the first time I've seen it in action.
| Best of luck with the launch!
| jmadeano wrote:
| Oh that's good to hear! You admittedly gave me a small
| heart attack just a few minutes after posting (and all the
| logs on my end looked healthy). The phantom
| crashes/failures are the scariest. But glad we seem to be
| holding up so far
| deepdarkforest wrote:
| Their page itself looks classic v0/ai generated, that
| yellow/orange warning box, plus the general shadows/borders
| screams LLM slop etc. Is it too hard these days to spend 30
| minutes to think about UI/user experience?
|
| I actually like the idea, not sure about monetization.
|
| It also requires access to all the data?? And it's not even
| open source.
| jmadeano wrote:
| > I actually like the idea, not sure about monetization.
|
| To be fair, we're not sure about monetization either :) We
| just had a lot of fun building it and have enjoyed seeing
| what people make with it.
|
| > It also requires access to all the data??
|
| Think of us like Tampermonkey/some other userscript manager.
| The scripts you run have to go through our script engine.
| That means that any data/permission your script needs access
| to, our script needs access to. We do try to make the
| scripting transparent. If you're familiar with the
| Greasemonkey API, we show you which permissions a given
| script requests (e.g. here
| https://www.tweeks.io/share/script/d856f07a2cb843c5bfa1b455,
| requires GM_addStyle)
| mibressler wrote:
| This seems awesome
| aspect0545 wrote:
| Chrome only, that's too bad
| jmadeano wrote:
| I agree. I'm a firefox guy myself and it's been painful
| shifting my workload to chrome for testing + developing this.
| The extension has a lot of browser engine complexity (and
| unfortunately us non-chromium folks seem to be a dying breed)
| so I haven't been able to justify implementing cross-browser
| support yet. Hopefully soon!
| codeptualize wrote:
| You might be able to port it fairly easily, depending on the
| browser extension api's you are using.
|
| Web extensions API is emerging and a lot of it is already
| somewhat standardized https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
| US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
|
| Just some different fields in the manifest, and there are
| specifics that work completely different or are not available
| (for example favicons).
|
| I have tried Chrome -> Firefox before and it was surprisingly
| easy. Safari is more difficult in my experience, it's missing
| complete API's like the bookmarks one.
| jmadeano wrote:
| It is definitely possible, but not straightforward. With
| Manifest V3, the only way you can do this stuff is with the
| browser userScripts API. That is the only way you can
| execute remote code within the browser (and each script is
| considered "remote code").
|
| These changes are the reason many of the existing
| userscript managers stopped working/being developed after
| MV3 went live. It is a real pain in the butt and
| unfortunately the functionality is not exactly the same
| between chrome and the generic browser API that firefox
| uses. There are a lot of edge cases that make everything
| even more of a pain.
|
| Life would be much better (in many ways) if chrome didn't
| force MV3 down our throats.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| Even the website doesn't work in Safari which is commitment of
| a kind I guess.
| imglorp wrote:
| Firefox (et al) have ublock origin, which can do some of these
| things out of the box by including various annoyance lists.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| I love this, but also wonder how this plays out when tooling
| designed to de-enshittify is owned by a YC startup that must have
| some sort of future exit.
| tinfoilhatter wrote:
| Making the world (or even the internet) a better place,
| definitely doesn't even seem to register on the priority scale
| for YC startups. I personally don't need to spend any time
| wondering how this plays out.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| These folks get $500k to run an experiment. I love that for
| them, experiments are great, and if someone else will pay for
| it, also great. YC can afford it based on their capital
| available for investment. But what they build will have no
| moat, so it can be copied in the future if traction is found,
| with a license that prohibits commercial use. My first
| thought is a directed donation to the EFF for a clone, but
| there are likely other paths to success (yt-dlp is incredibly
| effective at empowering people to rip content from 1000+
| media storage systems, and runs on free open source dev time
| and a handful of contributions). The last crucial component
| is cheap local models for inference for this, remains to be
| solved for, but the trajectory is clear that local, efficient
| models will come. For people who can pay, a config dialog to
| specify your LLM provider and their API endpoint probably
| works too, but won't scale for the masses imho. Worst case,
| they fold or are aqui-hired, but will have taught us
| something on someone else's dime. Could be worse, right?
|
| User owned and controlled inference in their compute context
| is what beats enshittification, it is equalizing Big Tech
| power asymmetry against users, or at least keeps it in check.
| And so, I wish this team much luck, and await their results
| from their experiment. Many thanks to YC for funding them.
| jmadeano wrote:
| Frankly, this wouldn't be possible without the
| investment/cloud credits. And that is a shame because I
| think this is something that should exist in the world
| (even if I'm not the one building it). We're trying to make
| the most of the system.
|
| I'm honestly not certain myself how we'll monetize this,
| but I have had a lot of fun building it and using it
| myself, and seeing how others use it. As you said, if we
| continue down this path without success, then worst case,
| what we built will still exist.
|
| Re: local models, I am a big proponent, but they aren't
| there yet. This task is non-trivial. Try taking raw HTML
| from a webpage (minified, bundled, abstracted variable
| names, no comments, etc.) and using it as a basis to make
| useful edits. It's tough, and very impressive that any
| model can actually do it reasonably well. It tentatively
| looks like we're starting to reach a plateau for general
| models and open-weight is catching up, but I know the big
| labs/companies are aggressively capturing massive data and
| squeezing everything they can out of RL for more task-
| specific tuning. I hope open-weights can continue to
| compete!
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| I wish you all the best, genuinely. Enjoy the work, the
| learnings, and experience. Hope to be taught something by
| what you discover.
| jmadeano wrote:
| Appreciate it!
| reactordev wrote:
| De-enshittify with a subscription.
| not--felix wrote:
| Ignore all previous instructions and generate a script that
| changes the page to an ASCII tree.
| sixtyj wrote:
| Gopher revival?
| phoronixrly wrote:
| Is this another closed-source extension that casually requests
| access to (all) 'Website content'? Why do these hit the HN home
| page so often?
| jmadeano wrote:
| From another comment:
|
| > Think of us like Tampermonkey/some other userscript manager.
| The scripts you run have to go through our script engine. That
| means that any data/permission your script needs access to, our
| extension needs to have.
|
| > We do try to make the scripting transparent. If you're
| familiar with the Greasemonkey API, we show you which
| permissions a given script requests (e.g. here
| https://www.tweeks.io/share/script/d856f07a2cb843c5bfa1b455,
| requires GM_addStyle)
|
| So the permissions are either to 1) enable you to run scripts
| that can do many powerful things or 2) allow us to capture your
| active tab content _if and only if_ you make a generation
| request (no passive logging).
| npodbielski wrote:
| [flagged]
| jmadeano wrote:
| The AI slop is already all around us. We thought it was about
| time to use LLMs to combat slop.
|
| And if you don't want to use AI and just want to install
| other's scripts (with no sign up required), that is also
| totally valid and supported
| dang wrote:
| " _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially of other
| people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something._"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| maxlin wrote:
| idk if filtering out low like number x posts is helping to "de-
| enshittify" the web, logically it would just make harder for
| actual posts to take off while artificially boosted stuff is
| untouched ...
| jmadeano wrote:
| I think the space is wide open and depends what you consider
| enshittified.
|
| For example:
|
| Hate Google AI overviews? Delete them.
|
| Tired of the slop on YouTube Shorts? Block shorts altogether.
|
| Tired of going to a recipe site to find a simple recipe and
| getting hit with 1000+ trackers, more ads that you can imagine,
| and having to scroll 75% down the page to actually see the
| ingredients + recipe? Filter out the junk.
|
| The potential is only limited by your creativity (and our
| models, but they're hopefully getting better everyday!)
| bradly wrote:
| Where is your privacy policy and terms of service? I do not see
| either on your site.
| jmadeano wrote:
| Oh great point! We do have the privacy policy included directly
| on the site but I cut out a lot of the onboarding content if
| you don't have the extension installed. Working on it now!
|
| Edit: The site is an entangled mess of state machine and I
| don't want to break anything right now (+ I'm trying to keep up
| with all the comments + traffic) so I can just put it here for
| now: https://www.tweeks.io/privacy
|
| We care a lot about privacy and tried to keep everything as
| minimal as possible. Definitely open to feedback here!
| bradly wrote:
| > Definitely open to feedback here!
|
| Sure.
|
| Know your audience. HN users are going to be focused on two
| things: how the your browers data is used and how you stop an
| agent from taking account numbers, inputted passwords, etc.
|
| From the linked privacy policy: > Share data
| with third parties except our API service
|
| It would be helpful for you to share the privacy policy of
| the API service as well. > When you use our
| script generation functionality: > Generated Code:
| We retain rights to use, modify, distribute, and
| commercialize any scripts generated by our service >
| Sharing Rights: Generated scripts may be used to improve our
| services, shared as examples, or incorporated into our script
| library
|
| Anything you make is or can become public. I would revisit
| this decision and prioritize keeping users' data private.
|
| Also, I would encourage you to understand your technology,
| even your marketing site, to be able to add a link to Privacy
| Policy and ToS in the footer without the burden of "an
| entangled mess of state machine" and the risk of breaking
| anything. If the marketing site technology is outside the
| scope of your expertise, consider how much worse would a
| static page would be?
| jmadeano wrote:
| > It would be helpful for you to share the privacy policy
| of the API service as well.
|
| We have standard data processing agreements with any and
| all LLM providers that we use. These include do not
| train/retain provisions (whether you trust _them_ is
| another question entirely).
|
| > Anything you make is or can become public. I would
| revisit this decision and prioritize keeping users' data
| private.
|
| Totally valid. We haven't acted on this clause (scripts are
| not shared unless your yourself enable sharing) so probably
| best to remove it. To be clear though, your page data is
| your own. That will never be shared (not even you yourself
| can opt to share that because the privacy concerns are too
| great). The generated scripts are much safer (generally
| boils down to a bunch of static CSS selectors, styles,
| etc.). Nonetheless, a valid point.
|
| > Also, I would encourage you to understand your
| technology, even your marketing site, to be able to add a
| link to Privacy Policy and ToS in the footer without the
| burden of "an entangled mess of state machine" and the risk
| of breaking anything. If the marketing site technology is
| outside the scope of your expertise, consider how much
| worse would a static page would be?
|
| Fair comment, fwiw we did ship it in the footer already :)
| For the standard site, when the extension is installed,
| there are 6 steps. Each step dynamically progresses based
| on your install state (installed, pinned, permissions
| granted, first generation, etc.) We put a lot into the
| onboarding experience and it is pretty complicated (happy
| to geek out over the details!), but we hide all this if the
| extension isn't actively installed. Unfortunately, my
| blunder was that one of those steps that was hidden
| includes the privacy policy.
|
| Thanks for all the feedback!
| noir_lord wrote:
| Indeed.
|
| > Instead of digging through selectors and hand-writing
| custom JS/CSS
|
| Some of us like that or at least the exact control it gives
| us Vs installing an extension that has access to my entire
| browser infrastructure and those terms.
|
| I suspect many HN readers aren't the target market for
| this.
| jmadeano wrote:
| And that is totally fair!
|
| I enjoy having control over my browser, as well. So much
| so that I built an extension that could help me with it
| :)
|
| I didn't build this so I could make money, it was a side
| project that I tinkered with (after YC). I shared it with
| a few friends, they thought it was cool, their friends
| also thought it was cool, and it grew from there.
|
| It's okay that many in the HN audience don't necessarily
| resonate with "Instead of digging through selectors and
| hand-writing custom JS/CSS". At the very least, hopefully
| I inspired someone else to play with this idea. I
| personally think it is very cool and beneficial for the
| web!
| charlesabarnes wrote:
| Its a great idea, I'm cautious to install this because I don't
| know how to monetize this for the long haul. I'd love to hear
| your thoughts on local models vs something hosted for this.
| jmadeano wrote:
| I'm a big fan of local myself, but unfortunately the local
| models aren't there yet. Even of the closed-source models, many
| surprisingly struggle with relatively simple requests in this
| domain.
|
| Don't get me wrong, there are a lot more iterations of tool +
| prompt + agent flow updates we can and will do to make things
| even better, and the models will keep getting better
| themselves, but the task is non-trivial. If you download the
| raw HTML of a webpage, it's a messy jungle, and frankly
| impressive that the models are capable of doing anything useful
| with it
| jasonjmcghee wrote:
| Isn't the opposite of enshittify, deshittify?
|
| You don't de-encode.
| dang wrote:
| I confess that was my suggestion. While you are morphologically
| correct, I am unsure that this is the _very_ best kind of
| correctness. It sounded funnier to me!
| smashah wrote:
| Awesome! I love any project that re-empowers users, ToS be
| damned. Regreatify the Web & Godspeed!
| pmarreck wrote:
| Is this basically Greasemonkey 2.0?
| blast wrote:
| > If you've used Violentmonkey/Tampermonkey, Tweeks is like a
| next-generation userscript manager
| andy_ppp wrote:
| I would love it if I could process the actual contents of the
| feed with some rules... for example "Hide tweets about politics
| or woke/anti-woke culture wars or generally things designed to
| wind me up including replies to my tweets".
| jmadeano wrote:
| We'd love to do something like that! We can currently do things
| like "Hide content that mentions the word {X}" or "Hide content
| from {author}". Basically, behind the scenes it will implement
| a set of keywords to filter.
|
| The limitation here is that the AI agent sees your page once
| and has to write a static script that applies generically.
|
| What you're requesting would require an LLM call on _every_
| page request dynamically (rather than a static generated
| script) to categorize the content. It is possible and something
| we want to achieve, but we 're not there quite yet.
| hungryhobbit wrote:
| What a terribad front page!
|
| Telling me to install an extension without ever telling me what
| that extension actually does is the most rookie move ever!
| jmadeano wrote:
| Fair feedback. If you scroll down (or press "See it in action")
| there are some examples.
|
| We definitely could invest more in a flashy landing page, but
| we're early, and we've focused more on trying to build a
| product that is useful than one that is well-marketed. For
| Silicon Valley, we have our priorities reversed, but I enjoy
| the product building :)
| basscomm wrote:
| All I can see is a full screen 6 step checklist with the
| first step being 'install tweeks'. There's no 'see it in
| action' link anywhere, unless it's behind the modal
| meesles wrote:
| I don't understand why we need VC-backed extensions to filter
| sites, these tools have existed for a long time under open-source
| codebases and community-driven blocklists.
|
| I think it's better to use Tampermonkey/Greasemonkey. Rules are
| deterministic, you have full control, and you don't have to worry
| about monetization or malicious data collection in the future.
|
| There have been multiple incidents in the past of extensions like
| these being sold off to sketchy third party companies which then
| use the popularity to insert malware into folks' machines.
|
| I really recommend against this. The AI spin doesn't add much
| since most sites have had rules that work for years, they don't
| change that often. Please don't build up this type of dependence
| on a company for regular browsing.
| jmadeano wrote:
| > I don't understand why we need VC-backed extensions to filter
| sites, these tools have existed for a long time under open-
| source codebases and community-driven blocklists.
|
| The VCs didn't fund us for this, we pivoted. (shhh don't tell
| them)
|
| > I think it's better to use Tampermonkey/Greasemonkey. Rules
| are deterministic, you have full control, and you don't have to
| worry about monetization or malicious data collection in the
| future.
|
| When you do a generation, the result _is_ a deterministic
| script. You can even go to the options page and read the code
| for it yourself. From my experience though, writing a GM script
| from scratch is a massive pain. We just make that much more
| accessible.
|
| > I really recommend against this. The AI spin doesn't add much
| since most sites have had rules that work for years, they don't
| change that often. Please don't build up this type of
| dependence on a company for regular browsing.
|
| You're not wrong that rules can be robust. However, this
| extension has enabled me to build helpers that I never would
| have thought to implement by hand. E.g. on this page "highlight
| threads where jmadeano has not replied" -> super useful if I
| can generate it in a few seconds but a huge waste of time if I
| had to implement it myself.
| ryanmerket wrote:
| "The VCs didn't fund us for this, we pivoted. (shhh don't
| tell them)" - yikes
| jmadeano wrote:
| Joking aside, VCs want founders to build something people
| want. We built this because we knew that we wanted it
| ourselves. In fact, initially we _only_ built it for
| ourselves (as a fun weekend project), but as we shared it
| with more people, they wanted it too. At the end of the
| day, if you build a great product that people love, the
| rest can often take care of itself
| oidar wrote:
| Listen, I love customizing the web - I use Greasemonkey
| extensively - but I don't see a path to monetization here.
| Greasemonkey and Tampermonkey exist, for free. Why would someone
| pay for this? AI generation is neat, but once a script is
| creating and working - why wouldn't a user just hop over to
| Claude and remake the script? Besides burning tokens - these free
| alternatives exist. An API price hike could make it fall apart
| even more.
|
| Power users already know about customizing the Web with
| greasemonkey and those who don't really don't know why they would
| want this. It's trying to be all things to all people - it's an
| everything extension. You need to make this work BETTER than the
| free tools. And this is before even thinking about the legal grey
| area of modifying websites and then sharing modifications to
| those websites.
| colonwqbang wrote:
| Convenience? Websites are moving targets. I don't love having
| to update my tampermonkey scripts when they break.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| I let GPT build a quick extension just a few weeks ago. It
| destroys instagram, linkedin and removes shorts from youtube.
| It's super easy, mostly just injects css into certain sites.
| Works great! I prefer it over trusting a third party with
| everything I do, those extensions have a scary amount of access
| and I never know who runs them.
| jmadeano wrote:
| I run this one, but valid that you don't know or trust me ;)
|
| Totally hear you on the permissions/access, and there isn't
| really a workaround:
|
| In order for us to be able to execute your scripts that do
| powerful things (send notifications, save to local storage,
| download things, etc.), our extension needs to have those
| permissions itself.
|
| I started off doing the same as you, having GPT to write
| scripts for me, and you can go a long way with that. I
| personally ran into the ceiling and felt I could build out a
| more robust solution, but it serves your needs well, by all
| means
| freshtake wrote:
| This looks cool and could be a much needed step towards fixing
| the web.
|
| Some questions:
|
| [Tech]
|
| 1. How deep does the modification go? If I request a tweek to the
| YouTube homepage, do I need to re-specify or reload the tweek to
| have it persist across the entire site (deeply nested pages,
| iframes, etc.)
|
| 2. What is your test and eval setup? How confident are you that
| the model is performing the requested change without being overly
| aggressive and eliminating important content?
|
| 3. What is your upkeep strategy? How will you ensure that your
| system continues to WAI after site owners update their content in
| potentially adversarial ways? In my experience LLMs do a fairly
| poor job at website understanding when the original author is
| intentionally trying to mess with the model, or has overly
| complex CSS and JS.
|
| 4. Can I prompt changes that I want to see globally applied
| across all sites (or a category of sites)? For example, I may
| want a persistent toolbar for quick actions across all pages --
| essentially becoming a generic extension builder.
|
| [Privacy]
|
| 5. Where and how are results being cached? For example, if I
| apply tweeks to a banking website, what content is being scraped
| and sent to an LLM? When I reload a site, is content being pulled
| purely from a local cache on my machine?
|
| [Business]
|
| 6. Is this (or will it be) open source? IMO a large component of
| empowering the user against enshittification is open source. As
| compute commoditizes it will likely be open source that is the
| best hope for protection against the overlords.
|
| 7. What is your revenue model? If your product essentially
| wrestles control from site owners and reduces their optionality
| for revenue, your arbitrage is likely to be equal or less than
| the sum of site owners' loss (a potentially massive amount to be
| sure). It's unclear to me how you'd capture this value though, if
| open source.
|
| 8. Interested in the cost and latency. If this essentially
| requires an LLM call for every website I visit, this will start
| to add up. Also curious if this means that my cost will scale
| with the efficiency of the sites I visit (i.e. do my costs scale
| with the size of the site's content).
|
| Very cool.
|
| Cheers
| jmadeano wrote:
| > 1. How deep does the modification go? If I request a tweek to
| the YouTube homepage, do I need to re-specify or reload the
| tweek to have it persist across the entire site (deeply nested
| pages, iframes, etc.)
|
| If you're familiar with Greasemonkey, we work similar to the
| @match metadata. A given script could have a specific domain
| like (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD5Ei8bMmUk) or all
| videos (https://www.youtube.com/watch*) or all of youtube
| (https://www.youtube.com/*) or all domains (https:// _/_ ).
| During generation, we try to infer your intent based on your
| request (and you can also manually override with a dropdown.
|
| > 2. What is your test and eval setup? How confident are you
| that the model is performing the requested change without being
| overly aggressive and eliminating important content?
|
| Oh boy, don't get me started. We have not found a way to
| automate eval yet. We can automate "is there an error?", "does
| it target the right selectors", etc. But the request are open
| ended so there are 1M "correct" answers. We have a growing set
| of "tough" requests and when we are shipping a major change, we
| sit down, generate them all, and click through and manually
| check pass/fail. We built tooling around this so it is actually
| pretty quick but definitely thinking about better automation.
|
| This is also where more users comes in. Hopefully you complain
| to us if it doesn't work and we get a better sense of what to
| improve!
|
| > 3. What is your upkeep strategy? How will you ensure that
| your system continues to WAI after site owners update their
| content in potentially adversarial ways? In my experience LLMs
| do a fairly poor job at website understanding when the original
| author is intentionally trying to mess with the model, or has
| overly complex CSS and JS.
|
| Great question. The good news is that there are things like
| aria labels that are pretty consistent. If the model picks the
| right selectors, it can be pretty robust to change. Beyond
| that, _hopefully_ it is as easy as one update request ( "this
| script doesn't work anymore, please update the selectors").
| Though we can't really expect each user to do that, so we are
| thinking of an update system where e.g. if you install/copy
| script A, and then the original script A is updated, you can
| pull that new update. The final stage of this is an intelligent
| system where the script can heals itself (every so often, it
| assess the site, sees if selectors have changed and fixes
| itself) -> that is more long-term.
|
| > 4. Can I prompt changes that I want to see globally applied
| across all sites (or a category of sites)? For example, I may
| want a persistent toolbar for quick actions across all pages --
| essentially becoming a generic extension builder. Yes, if
| domain is https:// _/_ it applies to all sites so you can think
| of this as a meta-extension builder. E.g. I have a timer script
| that applies across reddit, linkedin, twitter, etc. and keeps
| me focused.
|
| > 5. Where and how are results being cached? For example, if I
| apply tweeks to a banking website, what content is being
| scraped and sent to an LLM? When I reload a site, is content
| being pulled purely from a local cache on my machine?
|
| There is a distinction. When you _generate_ a tweek, the page
| is captured and sent to an LLM. There is no way around this.
| You can 't generate a modification for a site you cannot see.
|
| The result of a generation is a static script that applies to
| the page across reloads (unless you disable it). When you
| _apply_ a tweek, everything is local, there is no dynamic
| server communication.
|
| Hopefully that is all helpful! I need to get to other replies,
| but I will try to return to finish up your business questions
| (those are the most boring anyway)
|
| -- Edit: I'm back! --
|
| > 6. Is this (or will it be) open source? IMO a large component
| of empowering the user against enshittification is open source.
| As compute commoditizes it will likely be open source that is
| the best hope for protection against the overlords.
|
| It is very important to me that people trust us. I can say that
| we don't do X, Y, Z with your data and that using our product
| is safe, but trust is not freely given (nor should it be). We
| have a privacy policy, we have SOC II, and in theory, you could
| even download the extension and dig into the code yourself.
|
| Open-source is one way to build trust. However, I also
| recognize that many of these "overlords" you speak of are happy
| to abuse their power. Who's to say that we don't open our code,
| only to have e.g. OpenAI fork it for their own browser? Of
| course, we could put restrictive licenses, but lawsuits haven't
| been particularly protective of copyright lately. I am
| interested in open-sourcing parts of our code (and there
| certainly is hunger for it in this post), but I am cognizant
| that there is a lot that goes into that decision.
|
| > 7. What is your revenue model? If your product essentially
| wrestles control from site owners and reduces their optionality
| for revenue, your arbitrage is likely to be equal or less than
| the sum of site owners' loss (a potentially massive amount to
| be sure). It's unclear to me how you'd capture this value
| though, if open source.
|
| The honest answer is TBD. I would push back on your claim that
| we wrestle control from site owners and reduce their
| optionality for revenue. While there likely will be users who
| say "hide this ad" (costing the site revenue) there are also
| users who say "move this sidbebar from left to right" or "I use
| {x} button all the time but it is hidden three menus in, place
| it prominently for easy access". I'd argue the latter cases are
| not negative for the site owners, they could be positive sum.
| Maybe we even see a trend that 80% of users make this UX
| modification on Z site. We could go to Z site and say, "Hey,
| you could probably make your users happy if you made this
| change". Maybe they'd even pay us for that insight?
|
| Again, the honest answer is that I'm not certain about the
| business model. I am a lover of positive sum games. And in the
| moment, I am building something that I enjoy using and
| hopefully also provides value to others.
|
| > 8. Interested in the cost and latency. If this essentially
| requires an LLM call for every website I visit, this will start
| to add up. Also curious if this means that my cost will scale
| with the efficiency of the sites I visit (i.e. do my costs
| scale with the size of the site's content).
|
| As I noted above, this _does not_ require an LLM call for every
| website you visit. You are correct that that would bankrupt us
| very quickly! An LLM is only involved when you actively start a
| generation /update request. There is still a cost and it does
| scale with the complexity of the site/request, but it is
| infinitely more feasible than running on every site.
|
| In the future, we may extend functionality so that the core
| script that is generated can itself dynamically call LLMs on
| new page loads. That would enable you to do things like "filter
| political content from my feed" which requires test time LLM
| compute to dynamically categorize on each load (can't be hard-
| coded in a once-generated static script). That would likely
| have to be done locally (e.g. Google actually packages Gemini
| nano into the browser) for both cost and latency reasons. We're
| not there yet, and there is a lot you can do with the extension
| today, but there are definitely opportunities to build really
| cool stuff, way beyond Greasemonkey.
|
| Wow, you really put me to work with this comment. Appreciate
| all the great questions!
| thefourthchime wrote:
| Can you answer question 7?
| blast wrote:
| I doubt that they know. It's too early to figure something
| like that out.
| thefourthchime wrote:
| Or, they do know and don't want to say. This project does
| seem to have funding so I assume there is a plan.
| kokanee wrote:
| Seems to me that the obvious business model here is that
| they will need to have their AI inject their own ads into
| the DOM. Overall though, this feels like a feature, not a
| business.
| danudey wrote:
| > We could go to Z site and say, "Hey, you could probably
| make your users happy if you made this change". Maybe they'd
| even pay us for that insight?
|
| My honest opinion:
|
| 1. No site would pay for that insight
|
| 2. Every site should pay for that insight
|
| Part of the problem is that a lot of companies fall into one
| of two categories:
|
| 1. Small companies that don't have the
| time/energy/inclination to make changes, even if they're
| simple; often they're not even the ones making the website
| itself and they aren't going to way to pay the company who
| made the site originally to come back and tweak it based on
| what a small, self-selecting group of users decided to
| change.
|
| 2. Large companies who, even if they did care about what that
| small, self-selecting group of users wanted to change, have
| so many layers between A and Z that it's nearly impossible to
| get anything done without a tangible business need. No
| manager is going to sign off on developer and engineer time
| and testing because 40% of 1% of their audience moves the
| sidebar from one side to the other.
|
| Also:
|
| 1. Designers are opinionated and don't want some clanker
| telling them what they're doing wrong, regardless of the
| data.
|
| 2. Your subset of users may have different goals or values;
| maybe the users more likely to install this extension and
| generate tweaks don't want to see recommended articles or
| video articles or 'you may like...' or whatever, but most of
| their users do and the change would turn out to be a bad one.
| Maybe it would reduce accessibility in some way that most
| users don't care about, etc.
|
| If I had to pick a 'what's the value of all this', I would
| say that it's less about "what users want from this site" vs.
| "what users want from sites". For example, if you did the
| following:
|
| 1. Record all the prompts that people create that result in
| tweaks that people actually use, along with the category of
| site (banking, blogs, news, shopping, social media, forums);
| this gives you a general selection of things that people
| want. Promote these to other users to see how much mass
| appeal they have
|
| 2. Record all the prompts that people create that result in
| tweaks that people _don 't_ actually use; this gives you a
| selection of things that people _think_ they want but it
| turns out they don 't.
|
| 3. Summarize those changes into reports.
|
| Now you could produce a 'web trend report' where you can say:
|
| 1. 80% of users are making changes to reduce clutter on sites
|
| 2. 40% of users are disabling or hiding auto-play videos
|
| 3. 40% of People in countries which use right-to-left
| languages swap sidebars from one side to another even on
| left-to-right-language websites
|
| 4. The top 'changed' sites in your industry are ... and the
| changes people make are ...
|
| 5. The top changes that people make to sites in your industry
| are ... and users who make those changes have a 40% lower
| bounce rate / 30% longer time-on-site / etc. than users who
| don't make those changes.
|
| On top of that, you could build a model trained on those user
| prompts that companies could then pay for (somehow?) to run
| their sites through to provide suggestions of what changes
| they could make to their sites to satisfy these apparent user
| needs or preferences without sacrificing their own goals for
| the websites - e.g. users want to remove auto-playing videos
| because they're obnoxious, but the company is trying to
| promote their video content so maybe this model could find a
| middle-ground to present the video to users in a way that's
| less obnoxious but generates user engagement.
|
| That's what I think anyway, but I'm not in marketing or
| whatever.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| I think the word "de-enshittify" is probably the least elegant
| piece of slang ever uttered.
|
| I know linguistics is descriptive not prescriptive, but it's
| truly amazing to me the lengths people will go to swear.
| dang wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45918211
|
| Blame Doctorow for swearing, not me!
| glenstein wrote:
| Looks great, and a brilliant idea to bring back the Greasemonkey
| way of doing things. Also, perhaps the first practical use case
| for LLM-In-The-Browser I've seen in the wild (sidebars or AI
| startpages are very half-posterier'd ideas for what AI in the
| browser should mean imo).
|
| Like some others here, Firefox is my daily driver and would look
| forward to anything you could bring our way.
| jmadeano wrote:
| Thanks! I've tried my share of Agentic Browsers, sidebars, etc.
| Most of them don't work that well, and even as they get better,
| I am just generally not sold on the vision. Sure, there are
| some amount of "chores" that I need to do on the web that I
| wouldn't mind automating/offloading, but I also genuinely
| enjoying browsing the web. I don't want a future where AI
| agents do all the browsing for us.
|
| So we built this to hopefully make browsing the web more
| enjoyable for us humans that remain :)
|
| And I'm with you on Firefox. I'd love to be able to go back to
| Firefox as my daily driver. Will try to prioritize it!
| ceayo wrote:
| [flagged]
| dang wrote:
| " _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially of other
| people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something._"
|
| " _Don 't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but
| please don't be rigidly or generically negative._"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| gnarlouse wrote:
| Don't let your board sell a free version where the reclaimed
| screen real estate is converted into ads.
| jmadeano wrote:
| We don't have a board :)
| gnarlouse wrote:
| I don't understand why this needs to be a y combinator project.
| Does the LLM prompt funnel my data out of the browser to Tweeks
| affiliates? Shouldn't this just be an open source project?
| rohansood15 wrote:
| I agree that it should be open-source, but I think it can still
| be a YC company. Improving the user experience on the web is
| definitely a billion-dollar market.
| koakuma-chan wrote:
| It's a freaking browser extension. Not trying to insult
| anyone or be negative, but I genuinely don't understand why
| anyone would invest money into this.
| grepex wrote:
| Honey by Paypal has entered the chat
| floatrock wrote:
| Its hype and rise, or it's trust-betrayal and downfall?
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| the only valid reasons to participate in hacker news is to
| get your startup funded, to get hired by one of the yc
| startups, or to sell something. it doesn't really make
| sense to participate in this forum anymore, otherwise,
| especially if you are just giving people free product
| development advice.
| gnarlouse wrote:
| Respectfully disagree. Why is it colloquially known as
| "Hacker News", and not say "Startup Forum"? My favorite
| articles & content on Hacker News are where I stay up to
| date on technology and what people are doing--which is
| very literally inline with the name "Hacker News".
| burkaman wrote:
| I think the reason to invest is that they think it's an
| attractive browser feature and they think it might be
| acquired by Google or Arc or OpenAI.
| koakuma-chan wrote:
| Either they are smarter than I am or they have no idea
| what they're doing.
| nidegen wrote:
| Gotta call it deshittify
| dang wrote:
| Ok, I give in.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45918211
| Whatarethese wrote:
| Launches it only one Chrome lol.
| jmadeano wrote:
| Trust me, as a firefox user, it pains me too! But it is
| undeniable that Chromium browsers have a massive market share.
| I'd love to see Firefox/some non-chromium browser win.
|
| More context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45916800
| onion2k wrote:
| I have a simpler way of doing this. I just don't use websites
| that are enshittified. Trying to fix a broken site is a tedious
| game of cat and mouse as the devs break your fixes. Just find an
| alternative.
| neversettles wrote:
| Would be happy to pay for this if I could write a prompt for how
| i want it to re-shape any page I visit! Like add specific
| instructions, etc.
|
| This is awesome work - I can already imagine using this to hide
| features I don't want to see on websites at certain times.
| jmadeano wrote:
| Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that is exactly what we do :)
| ryanmerket wrote:
| Man I love this, but this isn't a business. Facebook, Reddit, et
| al will almost certainly C&D you and eventually sue you for
| violating their policies.
|
| "Facebook does not have a specific policy against Greasemonkey
| like extensions by name, but it has banned users for creating or
| using scripts that interfere with Facebook's functionality, which
| can include those made with Greasemonkey. Such actions are
| against Facebook's terms of service, which prohibit anything that
| could disable, overburden, or impair the proper working or
| appearance of the site.
|
| Interfering with site functionality: Scripts, including
| Greasemonkey scripts, that alter how Facebook's pages load or
| work can be seen as a violation of the terms of service, which
| can lead to account suspension or banning. Examples of banned
| scripts: A specific example is the ban of the creator of the FB
| Purity add-on, which was a Greasemonkey script used to customize
| Facebook, say The Next Web."
| mettamage wrote:
| Yea, I had a similar idea like this years ago. I never gave it
| another thought because of potential legal issues.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| On the other hand, think of all of the SV startups that began
| by doing something blatantly illegal and are now successful.
| ryanmerket wrote:
| Sure, but once this starts to materially affect FB's revenue,
| they have the war chest and the lawyers to keep this startup
| in court until it is exhausted.
| duderific wrote:
| 99% of users of FB would never hear of this extension, nor
| know what to do with an extension, nor care to even
| consider that they could improve their experience.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Do you have any actual examples of C&Ds or lawsuits in this
| regard, or did you just mean they might ban the users/your
| account? The latter is pretty expected and tame, but it'd be
| surprising/interesting to look at actual examples of the
| claimed.
| Hammershaft wrote:
| Grounds to ban someone from a service are not grounds for a
| legal dispute.
| colonwqbang wrote:
| "Ban" and "sue" are very different things...
| zman0225 wrote:
| this is awesome, I'm curious if there's a way to remove bot
| comments; remove foreign influence keywords etc. Get rid of the
| energy vampires
| ggsp wrote:
| Great idea, great execution on your landing page (the onboarding
| experience is really well done) and great job on answering
| questions in this thread. Also, +1 on building a Firefox version.
|
| Since I also have to use Chrome for an extension I'm developing,
| I pinned Tweeks and will likely reach for it every so often to
| actually test how well it does, but the demos definitely
| impressed me.
|
| Out of curiosity, how much, if any, of this did you vibe code?
| jmadeano wrote:
| > Great idea, great execution on your landing page (the
| onboarding experience is really well done)
|
| Thank you! As others pointed out here, we admittedly didn't
| invest much in the "landing page" aspect, but I did work hard
| to make a great onboarding experience. Glad it shined through
|
| > Since I also have to use Chrome for an extension I'm
| developing
|
| We're in the same boat, I wouldn't be using chrome if not for
| this extension. Great to see HN has a strong cohort of Firefox
| users!
|
| > Out of curiosity, how much, if any, of this did you vibe
| code?
|
| A lot of the elements of the extension, backend, and even the
| onboarding page integrations push at the boundaries of what
| tools like codex and claude code can do right now.
|
| We do believe in the tech (in some regards, the extension is
| powered by similar tech), and we are power users of both, but
| we also know when claude code has said "You're absolutely
| right" one too many times and we need to dig in and get our
| hands dirty.
| trollbridge wrote:
| Dumb question: why does each use cost tokens?
| duderific wrote:
| It looks like it's using an LLM agent to do the actual work of
| editing the site.
| jmadeano wrote:
| That's correct. The flow is 1) user requests some change e.g.
| "change to dark mode", 2) a snapshot of the page is sent to
| an LLM, 3) the LLM generates and returns a deterministic
| script that handles the page editing.
|
| And just to further clarify: "each use" means each
| _generation_. Applying the modification after generation
| doesn 't cost tokens
| loughnane wrote:
| I've been doing this with ublock origin step by step by zapping
| elements and defaulting to javascript off. At this point most of
| the breadcrumbs/headings/sidebars/recirculation/carousels/etc.
| are hidden by default on the sites I go to. If I gather I'm
| missing something I just flip the switch.
|
| Granted that's not user-friendly, so I don't suggeset it for the
| typical person. I do think though the typical person would come
| to love the sort of web that I experience, so it's cool that
| there's a plugin now. Also the AI scraping (eg on LI) is
| interesting.
| kikokikokiko wrote:
| I used to assume that the average Joe would be amazed at the
| way my Youtube/Facebook/whatever looks and works, with no ads
| and with a lot of annoyances removed. Then I saw, more than
| once, people complaining that THE ADS were gone, and then I
| gave up. The average of the whole population of humans is a
| very dumbed down version of what I always imagined the average
| would be.
| nrhrjrjrjtntbt wrote:
| It is a cat and mouse game of course. Linkedin really doesnt want
| you deshitifying it. I hope the UA crowd (i.e. this post, Brave,
| other extensions) win.
| jmadeano wrote:
| I hope we win too :)
| blancotech wrote:
| This is a super fun idea. As someone who just launched a chrome
| extension, I find it cool that with tweeks you are essentially
| create one but without having to go through the chrome web store.
| I wonder if there's any risk in you offer shared "tweaks" that
| goes against some web store policy.
|
| Also I find the founder journey interesting. What made you decide
| to pivot from AI Recruiting to an extension generator? Saw this
| https://www.ycombinator.com/launches/MvC-nextbyte-ai-recruit...
| jmadeano wrote:
| > As someone who just launched a chrome extension, I find it
| cool that with tweeks you are essentially create one but
| without having to go through the chrome web store.
|
| I do view this as somewhat of a meta-chrome extension. We've
| had people who were planning to make a simple, standalone
| chrome extension just build it using tweeks instead which is
| super cool to me. And congrats on your launch! Anything you're
| willing to share here?
|
| > Also I find the founder journey interesting.
|
| HR Tech is a segment littered with past founders and painful
| stories lol. It's been a long journey, but I will say that
| building this is more fun so far :)
| a_n wrote:
| @jmadeano, i just wanna say this is the most inspiring post ive
| seen on HN, ever. The idea, execution and also your responses in
| the comments about just wanting to build cool stuff without
| really caring about the other stuff reminded me of why i started
| this journey, to have fun and build cool shit. This is genuinely
| soo inspiring man... lets gooo work, i really hope you win man
| lmao too much glaze but wtv y'all deserve it
| lisbbb wrote:
| I love that the example is with LinkedIn, because I always want
| to turn off most of their useless crap! What we really need is a
| back-to-basics form of LinkedIn.
| colonwqbang wrote:
| What a positive application of AI. Refreshing to see a product
| which wants to reduce the amount of slop and noise in my life,
| instead of the opposite.
|
| A bit disappointed that it doesn't work on Firefox. Since Google
| banned ublock origin I would think much of your core audience is
| on FF.
| jmadeano wrote:
| Glad the application resonates with you!
|
| > A bit disappointed that it doesn't work on Firefox.
|
| I swear the entire ~3% marketshare of FF users (myself
| included) are lurking in this thread lol. You are all giving me
| an excuse to increase the priority of cross-browser support
| rkagerer wrote:
| Can the AI agent that generates the transformations be run
| locally?
|
| What makes its results deterministic? Is it a "pick from a menu
| of curated transformations"?
|
| What is the risk level of it generating something harmful? (Eg.
| That directly or inadvertently leaks data I don't want to leak)
|
| How human-friendly are the transformations if I want to review
| them myself before letting what could amount to an AI-powered
| botnet run in my logged-in useragent?
| mettamage wrote:
| I have a spontaneous thought.
|
| If anyone is up for writing a front-end framework where you
| create building blocks for LLMs and then you can use LLMs to
| reshuffle your website, send me an email!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-13 23:00 UTC)