Launch HN: Tweeks (YC W25) – Browser extension to deshittify the web

Overall concept & initial reception

• Extension uses an LLM to generate user scripts that modify sites (hide UI, restyle pages, etc.), then runs deterministic JS/CSS on page load.
• Many commenters find the idea “legitimately useful” and “exactly what I wanted,” especially for decluttering sites like YouTube, LinkedIn, Google, and news/recipe pages.
• Others are unimpressed by the landing page and onboarding flow, saying it leads with “install” before clearly explaining what it does.

Browser support & technical constraints

• Currently Chrome/Chromium-only; large contingent of Firefox users are disappointed.
• Author explains Manifest V3 forces use of userScripts for remote code, with many edge cases and differences vs Firefox’s WebExtensions API. Safari is described as even harder.
• Some note that uBlock Origin and classic userscript managers work well on Firefox already.

Privacy, security & permissions

• Heavy concern about a closed-source extension with “read/modify all sites” permissions.
• Team says:
  • Broad permissions are required so user scripts can do powerful things (notifications, storage, requests).
  • Page content is only sent to LLMs when the user explicitly requests a generation; applying scripts is local.
  • Greasemonkey-like grants are shown per script; users can inspect scripts in an options page.
  • LLM providers are under “no-train/no-retain” DPAs.
• Criticism of the privacy policy clause claiming rights over generated scripts; team agrees it’s probably best to remove and stresses page data is never shared.

Business model, VC & open source questions

• Repeated skepticism about monetization: “this isn’t a business,” “feature, not a company,” and fear that failure leads to selling the extension to a malicious buyer.
• Others argue it’s fine as an experiment; if it works, it can be cloned as open source.
• Founders say revenue model is TBD; they mainly built something they wanted to use.
• Debate over whether such a tool should be open source to truly “deshittify” the web; founders are interested but wary of large players forking it.

Comparison to existing tools

• Many point out Greasemonkey/Tampermonkey, Violentmonkey, Stylus, uBlock Origin (with cosmetic filters and annoyance lists) already provide similar power, open-source and without accounts.
• Pro-Tweeks arguments:
  • It drastically lowers the barrier to creating scripts (no DOM spelunking or JS/CSS expertise).
  • Acts as a “meta-extension” or lightweight extension builder, with one-click sharing of tweaks.
• Critics say power users can already have GPT write scripts or full extensions for them.

LLMs, local models & performance

• Under the hood: snapshot page → send to remote LLM → get back a script. Each generation consumes “tokens”; applying later is free.
• Latency can be 60–180 seconds; there’s a trade-off between speed and quality.
• Local models were tested but judged not good enough for reliably editing real-world, minified HTML/CSS/JS; author is optimistic but says the task is hard.
• Some want to plug in their own LLM/API key so the tool doesn’t die if hosted inference becomes too expensive.

Sharing, discoverability & UX

• There’s an early sharing/profile system; users can publish tweaks and browse their own profile.
• Roadmap includes surfacing popular tweaks per site and better discovery, while avoiding spammy popups.
• Users request: easier script preview before install, better editor, storing prompts alongside scripts, and curated galleries of common tweaks.

Legal, platform & longevity concerns

• Some warn big platforms (especially social networks) have previously banned users or fought extensions that alter their UX.
• Others note that banning or store takedowns are more likely than lawsuits, but even bans would deter many users.
• Several argue constant site changes will break tweaks; without shared, maintained lists, each user’s private tweaks may decay into frustration.