13 ms·

Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

254 points by RyanShook 7mo ago

cogman10 7mo ago
This is the correct way to handle this situation.
iepathos 7mo ago
Refreshing response from Google especially given the incompetence with which Anthropic has handled bans.
xrd 7mo ago
Another recent concern on other posts here on HN is whether a private company should have veto power over the US government. Or, another way to look at it, whether the US government should be able to designate a company as a supply chain risk and ban them from most business in the host country. If I squint at the conversation, it doesn't seem that different from a behemoth company taking an employee of a private company and forcing them to still stop working for arbitrary reasons. I'm giving agents and coding tools wide berth here, but if AI is going to replace all employees, what guarantees do you have as the employer that your employees will do your bidding, and not the bidding of enterprises with a shifting moral landscape? Once we have tooling wrapped around specific agents, it'll be hard to rehire. What will we do then when our "employees" are furloughed? This will be especially relevant when the big AI labs decide they need to enter a market to justify an obscene valuation. Or, when the sovereign wealth fund decides they don't like the direction of a business. This is a good and honorable decision by Google. But it also brings up scary times ahead.
jascha_eng 7mo ago
I still kinda wish that the subscriptions would just allow you to use the tokens however you wish. I get that they rely on people not using all of their quota. But e.g. with open code it doesn't really matter if I use antigravity or gemini-cli the usage should be about the same. What they are actually trying to force you to do is to pay for the tokens that you don't use in their applications to increase their revenue and/or give their in-house tools an "unfair" advantage. But this is bad for the consumer because it means that there is less competition between coding agents and unless I'm willing to pay per token I have to take one of the model labs agents. Anticompetitive behaviour imo they could just ban reselling tokens or something like that instead of locking your subscription in like this.
- NitpickLawyer 7mo ago
  > I get that they rely on people not using all of their quota They have no problem with users using their quota on their own software. Because they get the signals. They do have a problem with users using the API in 3rd party software, because they don't get the signals.
  - falcor84 7mo ago
    Well ... the clear signal is that people want to use Google's models but not Google products
    - theblazehen 7mo ago
      Most people have actually just been using Opus through antigravity
      - falcor84 7mo ago
        That's very different from what I'm seeing around me, but yes, I suppose that happens to. And I guess Google wouldn't have as much of an issue with that, right?
        theblazehen 7mo ago
        Ah, in my spaces (Involved in the proxy dev), most people have been using it for Opus. I suspect they may even have more of an issue with it, as they don't get the cost advantage of serving an in-house model
  - xiphias2 7mo ago
    I don't really understand this reasoning actually: if OpenClaw usage go up, and a service (OpenAI it looks like) gets lots of usage data for personal assistent usage, they can optimize to make it better for people who get a $200 subscription just because of that use case.
  - smashah 7mo ago
cube00 7mo ago
Over the past week, A week? Try at least 16 days https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/account-restricted-without-warning-google-ai-ultra-oauth-via-openclaw/122778 https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/account-restricted-without-w... The danger here is they'll ban you with no specific reason, fill out the form and you get an automatic unban and then something else automatically flags and you're banned the second time permanently. Support bot will then say "you were warned, read the TOS" and you get to guess what you did wrong. You'll notice there are no appeals or reviews in this workflow. Google has no creditability when it comes to handling account bans.
- clickety_clack 7mo ago
  People are crazy to use Google as the core of their online identity.
  - elAhmo 7mo ago
    Not crazy, it is just convenient. Constant pushes with Android, Chrome, random websites asking for Google login. Google wasn't always like this, and moving of from an email address isn't technically hard, but something that 99% of the people will be very very reluctant to do.
- oofbey 7mo ago
  Ex googler here. It is based on Google’s fundamental disdain of customers. Googlers are repeatedly told by management that they are the smartest people in the world and that their time is too valuable to spend on silly things like helping customers.
  - ph4rsikal 7mo ago
    I build AI for banks. A couple of weeks ago, I had a meeting with a Google team on Legacy Modernization using Agentic AI. Let me phrase it this way. None of them were smart. My team and I were shaking our heads at the low skills of the team. While this might have been true 20 years ago, I am sure there are pockets of smart people somewhere. But Google now employs 200K people worldwide. I am certain that it's hard to keep up the quality.
consumer451 7mo ago
Just wanted to say that Windsurf is chugging along just great. No drama for users, excellent outputs at low cost. I am confused why they are not used more widely.
- johnebgd 7mo ago
  We use them as well. Great product.
- WarmWash 7mo ago
  The problem wasn't antigravity, the problem was funneling clawdbot tokens through it (with a 3rd party plugin) to skirt API costs.
- TiredOfLife 7mo ago
  Windsurf also doesn't coredump constantly.
koolba 7mo ago
Way too risky to use Google services like this tied to your primary account. There’s too much risk of cross damage. Imagine losing access to your Gmail because some Gemini request flags you as an undesirable. The digital death sentence of losing access to your email with a company that notoriously has no way for the average human to contact a human is not worth the risk.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- gman83 7mo ago
  This wasn't due to some random Gemini request. Users were using sketchy antigravity auth plugins to use their antigravity tokens on things like OpenClaw, clearly against ToS. It's great that Google is giving these users a second chance.
  - johnebgd 7mo ago
    It’s be great if Google just revoked antigravity access if terms were violated. No need to disable the entire account.
    - dangus 7mo ago
      I’ll go further: there should be laws addressing account consolidation. Getting banned from an Apple or Google account is an incredibly wide blast radius. It would be like being banned from buying Unilever or Nestle food from your grocery store.
      - plagiarist 7mo ago
        Email providers should be utilities and also legally require a warrant before disclosing any information whatsoever to the government. Unfortunately the government is full of corrupt geriatrics who do not understand technology and are paid to continue not understanding technology as they sign bills prepared for them by ALEC.
    - 7mo ago
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
fsalbrechter 7mo ago
Still no clarification if they block your whole Google account or just Gemini?
- Thorrez 7mo ago
  Not the entire Google account. > bans for Antigravity usage also blocked access to Gemini CLI and Gemini Code Assist. Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on anything related to this.
RyanShook 7mo ago
What I don’t understand about policy violations is why Google never warns the user before banning. A simple alert or email would reduce so much frustration on the part of users and so much overhead for Google. ToS change frequently and it’s not really fair to assume the user knows what is and is not correct use of tokens.
- solfox 7mo ago
  Not just Google. This seems to be the default for most tech giants. I was banned on Facebook for an unknown reason, not provided any explanation, and given zero recourse. Had to resort to reaching out to a friend who worked there.
- sheept 7mo ago
  I think from their end, they see a lot more malicious users (e.g. spam accounts) that it's not worth providing a gentle warning before a ban. There might've been thousands more accounts created for Chinese companies for distillation[0], that Google didn't think of/weren't able to initially distinguish genuine user accounts just using a third party tool on their Antigravity token. Like in a similar vein, Instagram sometimes randomly bans genuine users without appeal, probably because they deal with thousands more spam accounts that don't deserve a warning/appeals process. [0] Like as Anthropic reported: https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-distillation-attacks https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist...
  - verdverm 7mo ago
    This is where mechanisms like ZKP + CBA built from a government ID will allow the company to distinguish, even through third parties, all without exposing actual identity.
- g947o 7mo ago
  It is very easy to understand -- Google loses nothing by acting this way. They despise these users (and users in general by not providing any meaningful customer service), so it's natural they just cut off access completely. If you think about how people's entire Google accounts are getting banned without apparently violating any terms without the ability to talk to someone or appeal, this feels almost nothing.
MiscIdeaMaker99 7mo ago
I feel dumb. I've never heard of Antigravity until now.
- gozzoo 7mo ago
  Good for you :)
- oofbey 7mo ago
  Welcome to the singularity, now in progress. One of its defining features is that things move too fast for people to keep up.
  - pocksuppet 7mo ago
    By this logic though JavaScript frameworks were the singularity
    - oofbey 7mo ago
      lol. True. I guess the difference is “things that matter to technological progress” move too fast to keep up.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
esskay 7mo ago
All this whole thing did is ensure I never, ever use any google AI service. The fact that they didn't instantly comprehend what a total account ban means when they've got people with 20+ years worth of personal data in those accounts is incredibly concerning.
- squeaky-clean 7mo ago
  But there were no total account bans. If you got banned from antigravity you also got banned from the Gemini API.
  - notrealyme123 7mo ago
    Yes, but next time this might be different. Who knows, there are no rules. You ask Gemini about creating a new search engine which might compete with Google: is it fine? Is it a permaban of all your Google services? Let's put it on red and go for it!
    - DangitBobby 7mo ago
      Right. The point is that the anxiety around total account bans is realistic and has a historical basis.
narmiouh 7mo ago
I see a lot of comments in googles defense, part of me wonders whats the split between google employees(even so people in teams related to these products) and normies who ignore the true underlying issue here… Google consistently fails to provide a process to deal with user issues. You donot see many reports of these at Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, and many more providers. Though Meta learns from google I think.
- cube00 7mo ago
  Microsoft has a had a few high profile cases of locking people out and taking their OneDrive with it with no ability to get support.
  - TacticalCoder 7mo ago
    > Microsoft has a had a few high profile cases of locking people out and taking their OneDrive with it with no ability to get support. Yes but as we're talking about Microsoft, these cases are probably explained by incompetence.
marcd35 7mo ago
cool. now do something about the hundreds/thousands of people getting rate limited on Antigravity even after upgrading their plans, even on their $250 /month plan. https://discuss.ai.google.dev/c/antigravity/64 https://discuss.ai.google.dev/c/antigravity/64
sergiotapia 7mo ago
Complete risk to use google products like this with your real account. My youtube is still banned over uploading two clips of Dexter's Laboratory over 15 years ago. Today I could have uploaded them fine, and let whoever owns the cartoon make money I was just a fan of the show.
jijji 7mo ago
this is the long-standing problem with using Google services. either they become deprecated and removed without notification, or they outright ban you for using tools as intended. either way, using Google tools for anything doesn't make business sense to anybody who's seen the history of this.
writeslowly 7mo ago
It’s interesting that with both Anthropic and Google we’re seeing them develop agentic models that are supposed to do anything a human can do on computers without human intervention, but at the same time, if you plug one program into another of their programs or APIs in a way that wasn’t preapproved you may be blocked or banned. To be charitable, maybe they’re expecting AI agents to eventually start reading the ToS docs
sidewndr46 7mo ago
Why is this published on github.com? Is google somehow incapable of making official announcements through their own web properties?
gck1 7mo ago
> Using third-party software, tools, or services to harvest or piggyback on Gemini CLI's OAuth authentication to access our backend services is a direct violation of Gemini CLI’s applicable terms and policies. It's been 2 months since these bans have started, first Anthropic, then Google. And their wording is still so confusing that I can't get a simple answer to a simple question: Is piggybacking on headless 'gemini-cli -p' or 'claude -p' a TOS violation? Because there's really no reason why you can't do exactly what these tools did that caused these two companies to start giving out bans. Unless you're in for a very specific configuration of models for some niche concern, CLIs give you nearly exact same access to the backend that snatching an OAuth token from them does. They give you JSONL for stdin, JSONL for stdout, and if you spin up a local proxy, you even get the same exact API contract in responses that you get from public APIs. In fact, I already built a small tool for myself that does exactly that, to allow usage of alternative harnesses I prefer. Once I release it to the public, will -p be banned too?
- blainm 7mo ago
  I think the issue is people are using tools in an automated fashion and running up a compute bill for free when they were only meant to be used by humans in a more limited capacity (for companies to gather data on how to improve their products for humans). I think the correct way to use these models in an automated fashion is via the APIs and even then they might also worry about things like abuse/distillation type attacks still if the volume is too high. I think the lack of transparency might actually be by design so that people abusing their services don't figure out what triggers them losing their accounts. I could be wrong of course, this is just speculation on my part.
  - gck1 7mo ago
    > I think the issue is people are using tools in an automated fashion But that's the sole reason why all of the tools have headless modes. Headless mode is textbook definition of supporting automation. From gemini docs: [1] > Headless mode allows you to run Gemini CLI programmatically from command line scripts and automation tools without any interactive UI. And claude code: > Use the Agent SDK to run Claude Code programmatically from the CLI, Python, or TypeScript Why does headless mode exist if using it is a bannable offense? [1] https://google-gemini.github.io/gemini-cli/docs/cli/headless.html https://google-gemini.github.io/gemini-cli/docs/cli/headless... [2] https://code.claude.com/docs/en/headless https://code.claude.com/docs/en/headless
ankit219 7mo ago
this is good. problem is google's security concerns. when people connect gmail to openclaw, google flags the activity as weird and suspend the account because of unusual activity. Many whose accounts got locked because of this and they thought it was because they connected it to antigravity use against the policy (which happened in some cases). We will still see google account suspensions, and that would keep making news. and it wont be because of antigravity usage.
cat_plus_plus 7mo ago
The problem is that Google treats its customers as college kids who can be banned from a college maker lab for using too much 3D filament rather than entrepreneurs who are trusting their livelyhood to a service provider that promises to be reliable. If War Department uses too many Gemini tokens, do they cut them off, make them go through recertification process and permaban the next time around? Which means that anyone serious about AI and not going local route should be using a provider with better reputation. I don't know if Alibaba, Z.ai or moonshots AI are also known for hair trigger responses, could be decent options for coding AI otherwise? If not, time to look for smaller providers with good reputation?
hsaliak 7mo ago
The Gemini-CLI situation is poor. They did not communicate that AI Pro or AI Ultra accounts cannot be used with this API broadly earlier. I specifically remember searching for this info. Seeing this made me wonder if I had missed it. Turns out it was added to the TOS 2 days ago - diff https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/pull/20488/changes https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/pull/20488/chang.... I'd be happy to stand corrected here. Anti Gravity I understand, they are subsidizing to promote a general IDE, but I dont understand constraining the generative AI backend that Gemini CLI hits. Finally, it's unclear what's allowed and what's not if I purchase the API access from google cloud here https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/overview#supported-features https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/overvi... The Apache License of this product at this point is rich. Just make it closed source and close the API reference. Why have it out there?
- tempest_ 7mo ago
  I have a Code Assist Standard license to evaluate gemini-cli (and the new models) To this day I cannot coax the gemini-cli to allow me to use the models they claim you have access to. Enabled all the preview stuff in cloud etc etc. Still I mostly get 2.5 and rarely get 3 or 3.1 offered. The gemini-cli repo is a shit show. I can seem to access the new models using opencode, but am 429 rate limited almost immediately such that its like 5 minutes between calls.
  - hsaliak 7mo ago
    It takes your query, computes the complexity of the request, and tries to route it to the appropriate model. There is a /manual command i think, to pick the right model. They mask the 429s well in Gemini-Cli - if an endpoint is rate limited, they try another, or route to another model, etc to keep service availability up. Your experience on the 429s is consistent with mine - the 429s is the first thing they need to fix. Fix that and they have a solid model at a good price point. I use my own coding agent (https://github.com/hsaliak/std_slop https://github.com/hsaliak/std_slop) and not being able to bring my (now cancelled) AI account with Google to it is a bummer. I'd still use it with the Code Assist Standard license if the google cloud API subscription allows for it but I have no clarification.
TiredOfLife 7mo ago
Incompetence of Google is amazing. They take an existing thing like Windsurf and somehow make it constantly coredump. And can't fix it for months.
chaostheory 7mo ago
> to address violations of the Antigravity Terms of Service (ToS), specifically the use of 3rd party tools or proxies to access Antigravity resources and quotas Translation: Google doesn’t want you using Gemini oauth with openclaw
zero0529 7mo ago
I am sick and tired of companies forcing a shitty fork of vscode down my throat. If I am paying let me use your api how I wish to. Most people aren’t malicious and just want to use their own workflow.
wiskinator 7mo ago
Without the context of “Antigravity” being a product name this headline is science fiction gold.
burgerone 7mo ago
https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/discussions/20632#discussioncomment-15957380 https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/discussions/2063... This comment resonated with me in particular.
- verdverm 7mo ago
  thank you, I've been putting in work on /new
meling 7mo ago
What’s my remedy when Google’s product (Gemini 3.1 pro high) makes a “grave” mistake? This is unrelated to the bans that’s been happening recently, but wanted to share … This morning I asked Gemini to “save” its output to a local file. However it did more than that … it committed the file (along with several unrelated staged changes that was not ready to be committed) and even pushed the changes to GitHub. I’ve never asked any model to commit, let alone push… I’m not impressed; actually a bit disappointed that it would do this without any warning up front. This happened in Antigravity.
- verdverm 7mo ago
  Tool confirmation and controls, every LLM with any instructions is susceptible to this "grave mistake", it's in the "nature" Or just don't give it the keys, this is my strategy. Put them in a box with specific tools and access. See also The Lethal Trifecta
isaachinman 7mo ago
The deeper issue here isn't about Antigravity specifically. It's that email is most people's de facto digital identity. Every password reset, every 2FA recovery, every account verification flows through it. When a company can revoke access to your email over a ToS violation in a completely unrelated product, the stakes are disproportionate. The fix is surprisingly straightforward: own your domain, use a provider that focuses on email, and keep your client separate from your provider. Standard IMAP means all three pieces are interchangeable. If one fails, swap it out. (I work on Marco [0], an IMAP email client. The number of people looking to decouple from Gmail/Google has been growing steadily, definitely a current trend.) [0] https://marcoapp.io https://marcoapp.io
NamlchakKhandro 7mo ago
If i can't use PiMono with the service then the service is effectively dead to market
sreekanth850 7mo ago
Kindly fix update bug, everytime when i close it, app get un installed.
abhitriloki 7mo ago
[dead]
unit149 7mo ago
[dead]
Verdex 7mo ago
In my mind Google is the one AI provider which is more or less guaranteed to make it past the next 2-5 years. Maybe anthropic and openai can be profitable with current model. But they'll never get to stop investing in next model while Google is there with infinite money. So either scaling stops hard here pretty soon so that spending can stabilize or else the investors are going to be showing up asking for several pounds of flesh. Suddenly 'dont get left behind, this is the worst these models will ever be' sounds a lot more like 'get locked in with a hyper giant that'll destroy your livelihood and not notice'. Although who knows, maybe local models will be a thing (however when your dev team gets banned with no explanation and the next milestone is coming up somehow I don't expect that transition to go sufficiently quick).

254 points by RyanShook 7mo ago

cogman10 7mo ago

This is the correct way to handle this situation.

iepathos 7mo ago

Refreshing response from Google especially given the incompetence with which Anthropic has handled bans.

xrd 7mo ago

Another recent concern on other posts here on HN is whether a private company should have veto power over the US government. Or, another way to look at it, whether the US government should be able to designate a company as a supply chain risk and ban them from most business in the host country. If I squint at the conversation, it doesn't seem that different from a behemoth company taking an employee of a private company and forcing them to still stop working for arbitrary reasons. I'm giving agents and coding tools wide berth here, but if AI is going to replace all employees, what guarantees do you have as the employer that your employees will do your bidding, and not the bidding of enterprises with a shifting moral landscape? Once we have tooling wrapped around specific agents, it'll be hard to rehire. What will we do then when our "employees" are furloughed? This will be especially relevant when the big AI labs decide they need to enter a market to justify an obscene valuation. Or, when the sovereign wealth fund decides they don't like the direction of a business. This is a good and honorable decision by Google. But it also brings up scary times ahead.

jascha_eng 7mo ago

I still kinda wish that the subscriptions would just allow you to use the tokens however you wish. I get that they rely on people not using all of their quota. But e.g. with open code it doesn't really matter if I use antigravity or gemini-cli the usage should be about the same. What they are actually trying to force you to do is to pay for the tokens that you don't use in their applications to increase their revenue and/or give their in-house tools an "unfair" advantage. But this is bad for the consumer because it means that there is less competition between coding agents and unless I'm willing to pay per token I have to take one of the model labs agents. Anticompetitive behaviour imo they could just ban reselling tokens or something like that instead of locking your subscription in like this.

NitpickLawyer 7mo ago
> I get that they rely on people not using all of their quota They have no problem with users using their quota on their own software. Because they get the signals. They do have a problem with users using the API in 3rd party software, because they don't get the signals.
- falcor84 7mo ago
  Well ... the clear signal is that people want to use Google's models but not Google products
  - theblazehen 7mo ago
    Most people have actually just been using Opus through antigravity
    - falcor84 7mo ago
      That's very different from what I'm seeing around me, but yes, I suppose that happens to. And I guess Google wouldn't have as much of an issue with that, right?
      - theblazehen 7mo ago
        Ah, in my spaces (Involved in the proxy dev), most people have been using it for Opus. I suspect they may even have more of an issue with it, as they don't get the cost advantage of serving an in-house model
- xiphias2 7mo ago
  I don't really understand this reasoning actually: if OpenClaw usage go up, and a service (OpenAI it looks like) gets lots of usage data for personal assistent usage, they can optimize to make it better for people who get a $200 subscription just because of that use case.
- smashah 7mo ago

cube00 7mo ago

Over the past week, A week? Try at least 16 days https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/account-restricted-without-warning-google-ai-ultra-oauth-via-openclaw/122778 https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/account-restricted-without-w... The danger here is they'll ban you with no specific reason, fill out the form and you get an automatic unban and then something else automatically flags and you're banned the second time permanently. Support bot will then say "you were warned, read the TOS" and you get to guess what you did wrong. You'll notice there are no appeals or reviews in this workflow. Google has no creditability when it comes to handling account bans.

clickety_clack 7mo ago
People are crazy to use Google as the core of their online identity.
- elAhmo 7mo ago
  Not crazy, it is just convenient. Constant pushes with Android, Chrome, random websites asking for Google login. Google wasn't always like this, and moving of from an email address isn't technically hard, but something that 99% of the people will be very very reluctant to do.
oofbey 7mo ago
Ex googler here. It is based on Google’s fundamental disdain of customers. Googlers are repeatedly told by management that they are the smartest people in the world and that their time is too valuable to spend on silly things like helping customers.
- ph4rsikal 7mo ago
  I build AI for banks. A couple of weeks ago, I had a meeting with a Google team on Legacy Modernization using Agentic AI. Let me phrase it this way. None of them were smart. My team and I were shaking our heads at the low skills of the team. While this might have been true 20 years ago, I am sure there are pockets of smart people somewhere. But Google now employs 200K people worldwide. I am certain that it's hard to keep up the quality.

consumer451 7mo ago

Just wanted to say that Windsurf is chugging along just great. No drama for users, excellent outputs at low cost. I am confused why they are not used more widely.

johnebgd 7mo ago
We use them as well. Great product.
WarmWash 7mo ago
The problem wasn't antigravity, the problem was funneling clawdbot tokens through it (with a 3rd party plugin) to skirt API costs.
TiredOfLife 7mo ago
Windsurf also doesn't coredump constantly.

koolba 7mo ago

Way too risky to use Google services like this tied to your primary account. There’s too much risk of cross damage. Imagine losing access to your Gmail because some Gemini request flags you as an undesirable. The digital death sentence of losing access to your email with a company that notoriously has no way for the average human to contact a human is not worth the risk.

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
gman83 7mo ago
This wasn't due to some random Gemini request. Users were using sketchy antigravity auth plugins to use their antigravity tokens on things like OpenClaw, clearly against ToS. It's great that Google is giving these users a second chance.
- johnebgd 7mo ago
  It’s be great if Google just revoked antigravity access if terms were violated. No need to disable the entire account.
  - dangus 7mo ago
    I’ll go further: there should be laws addressing account consolidation. Getting banned from an Apple or Google account is an incredibly wide blast radius. It would be like being banned from buying Unilever or Nestle food from your grocery store.
    - plagiarist 7mo ago
      Email providers should be utilities and also legally require a warrant before disclosing any information whatsoever to the government. Unfortunately the government is full of corrupt geriatrics who do not understand technology and are paid to continue not understanding technology as they sign bills prepared for them by ALEC.
  - 7mo ago

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

fsalbrechter 7mo ago

Still no clarification if they block your whole Google account or just Gemini?

Thorrez 7mo ago
Not the entire Google account. > bans for Antigravity usage also blocked access to Gemini CLI and Gemini Code Assist. Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on anything related to this.

RyanShook 7mo ago

What I don’t understand about policy violations is why Google never warns the user before banning. A simple alert or email would reduce so much frustration on the part of users and so much overhead for Google. ToS change frequently and it’s not really fair to assume the user knows what is and is not correct use of tokens.

solfox 7mo ago
Not just Google. This seems to be the default for most tech giants. I was banned on Facebook for an unknown reason, not provided any explanation, and given zero recourse. Had to resort to reaching out to a friend who worked there.
sheept 7mo ago
I think from their end, they see a lot more malicious users (e.g. spam accounts) that it's not worth providing a gentle warning before a ban. There might've been thousands more accounts created for Chinese companies for distillation[0], that Google didn't think of/weren't able to initially distinguish genuine user accounts just using a third party tool on their Antigravity token. Like in a similar vein, Instagram sometimes randomly bans genuine users without appeal, probably because they deal with thousands more spam accounts that don't deserve a warning/appeals process. [0] Like as Anthropic reported: https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-distillation-attacks https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist...
- verdverm 7mo ago
  This is where mechanisms like ZKP + CBA built from a government ID will allow the company to distinguish, even through third parties, all without exposing actual identity.
g947o 7mo ago
It is very easy to understand -- Google loses nothing by acting this way. They despise these users (and users in general by not providing any meaningful customer service), so it's natural they just cut off access completely. If you think about how people's entire Google accounts are getting banned without apparently violating any terms without the ability to talk to someone or appeal, this feels almost nothing.

MiscIdeaMaker99 7mo ago

I feel dumb. I've never heard of Antigravity until now.

gozzoo 7mo ago
Good for you :)
oofbey 7mo ago
Welcome to the singularity, now in progress. One of its defining features is that things move too fast for people to keep up.
- pocksuppet 7mo ago
  By this logic though JavaScript frameworks were the singularity
  - oofbey 7mo ago
    lol. True. I guess the difference is “things that matter to technological progress” move too fast to keep up.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

esskay 7mo ago

All this whole thing did is ensure I never, ever use any google AI service. The fact that they didn't instantly comprehend what a total account ban means when they've got people with 20+ years worth of personal data in those accounts is incredibly concerning.

squeaky-clean 7mo ago
But there were no total account bans. If you got banned from antigravity you also got banned from the Gemini API.
- notrealyme123 7mo ago
  Yes, but next time this might be different. Who knows, there are no rules. You ask Gemini about creating a new search engine which might compete with Google: is it fine? Is it a permaban of all your Google services? Let's put it on red and go for it!
  - DangitBobby 7mo ago
    Right. The point is that the anxiety around total account bans is realistic and has a historical basis.

narmiouh 7mo ago

I see a lot of comments in googles defense, part of me wonders whats the split between google employees(even so people in teams related to these products) and normies who ignore the true underlying issue here… Google consistently fails to provide a process to deal with user issues. You donot see many reports of these at Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, and many more providers. Though Meta learns from google I think.

cube00 7mo ago
Microsoft has a had a few high profile cases of locking people out and taking their OneDrive with it with no ability to get support.
- TacticalCoder 7mo ago
  > Microsoft has a had a few high profile cases of locking people out and taking their OneDrive with it with no ability to get support. Yes but as we're talking about Microsoft, these cases are probably explained by incompetence.

marcd35 7mo ago

cool. now do something about the hundreds/thousands of people getting rate limited on Antigravity even after upgrading their plans, even on their $250 /month plan. https://discuss.ai.google.dev/c/antigravity/64 https://discuss.ai.google.dev/c/antigravity/64

sergiotapia 7mo ago

Complete risk to use google products like this with your real account. My youtube is still banned over uploading two clips of Dexter's Laboratory over 15 years ago. Today I could have uploaded them fine, and let whoever owns the cartoon make money I was just a fan of the show.

jijji 7mo ago

this is the long-standing problem with using Google services. either they become deprecated and removed without notification, or they outright ban you for using tools as intended. either way, using Google tools for anything doesn't make business sense to anybody who's seen the history of this.

writeslowly 7mo ago

It’s interesting that with both Anthropic and Google we’re seeing them develop agentic models that are supposed to do anything a human can do on computers without human intervention, but at the same time, if you plug one program into another of their programs or APIs in a way that wasn’t preapproved you may be blocked or banned. To be charitable, maybe they’re expecting AI agents to eventually start reading the ToS docs

sidewndr46 7mo ago

Why is this published on github.com? Is google somehow incapable of making official announcements through their own web properties?

gck1 7mo ago

> Using third-party software, tools, or services to harvest or piggyback on Gemini CLI's OAuth authentication to access our backend services is a direct violation of Gemini CLI’s applicable terms and policies. It's been 2 months since these bans have started, first Anthropic, then Google. And their wording is still so confusing that I can't get a simple answer to a simple question: Is piggybacking on headless 'gemini-cli -p' or 'claude -p' a TOS violation? Because there's really no reason why you can't do exactly what these tools did that caused these two companies to start giving out bans. Unless you're in for a very specific configuration of models for some niche concern, CLIs give you nearly exact same access to the backend that snatching an OAuth token from them does. They give you JSONL for stdin, JSONL for stdout, and if you spin up a local proxy, you even get the same exact API contract in responses that you get from public APIs. In fact, I already built a small tool for myself that does exactly that, to allow usage of alternative harnesses I prefer. Once I release it to the public, will -p be banned too?

blainm 7mo ago
I think the issue is people are using tools in an automated fashion and running up a compute bill for free when they were only meant to be used by humans in a more limited capacity (for companies to gather data on how to improve their products for humans). I think the correct way to use these models in an automated fashion is via the APIs and even then they might also worry about things like abuse/distillation type attacks still if the volume is too high. I think the lack of transparency might actually be by design so that people abusing their services don't figure out what triggers them losing their accounts. I could be wrong of course, this is just speculation on my part.
- gck1 7mo ago
  > I think the issue is people are using tools in an automated fashion But that's the sole reason why all of the tools have headless modes. Headless mode is textbook definition of supporting automation. From gemini docs: [1] > Headless mode allows you to run Gemini CLI programmatically from command line scripts and automation tools without any interactive UI. And claude code: > Use the Agent SDK to run Claude Code programmatically from the CLI, Python, or TypeScript Why does headless mode exist if using it is a bannable offense? [1] https://google-gemini.github.io/gemini-cli/docs/cli/headless.html https://google-gemini.github.io/gemini-cli/docs/cli/headless... [2] https://code.claude.com/docs/en/headless https://code.claude.com/docs/en/headless

ankit219 7mo ago

this is good. problem is google's security concerns. when people connect gmail to openclaw, google flags the activity as weird and suspend the account because of unusual activity. Many whose accounts got locked because of this and they thought it was because they connected it to antigravity use against the policy (which happened in some cases). We will still see google account suspensions, and that would keep making news. and it wont be because of antigravity usage.

cat_plus_plus 7mo ago

The problem is that Google treats its customers as college kids who can be banned from a college maker lab for using too much 3D filament rather than entrepreneurs who are trusting their livelyhood to a service provider that promises to be reliable. If War Department uses too many Gemini tokens, do they cut them off, make them go through recertification process and permaban the next time around? Which means that anyone serious about AI and not going local route should be using a provider with better reputation. I don't know if Alibaba, Z.ai or moonshots AI are also known for hair trigger responses, could be decent options for coding AI otherwise? If not, time to look for smaller providers with good reputation?

hsaliak 7mo ago

The Gemini-CLI situation is poor. They did not communicate that AI Pro or AI Ultra accounts cannot be used with this API broadly earlier. I specifically remember searching for this info. Seeing this made me wonder if I had missed it. Turns out it was added to the TOS 2 days ago - diff https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/pull/20488/changes https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/pull/20488/chang.... I'd be happy to stand corrected here. Anti Gravity I understand, they are subsidizing to promote a general IDE, but I dont understand constraining the generative AI backend that Gemini CLI hits. Finally, it's unclear what's allowed and what's not if I purchase the API access from google cloud here https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/overview#supported-features https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/overvi... The Apache License of this product at this point is rich. Just make it closed source and close the API reference. Why have it out there?

tempest_ 7mo ago
I have a Code Assist Standard license to evaluate gemini-cli (and the new models) To this day I cannot coax the gemini-cli to allow me to use the models they claim you have access to. Enabled all the preview stuff in cloud etc etc. Still I mostly get 2.5 and rarely get 3 or 3.1 offered. The gemini-cli repo is a shit show. I can seem to access the new models using opencode, but am 429 rate limited almost immediately such that its like 5 minutes between calls.
- hsaliak 7mo ago
  It takes your query, computes the complexity of the request, and tries to route it to the appropriate model. There is a /manual command i think, to pick the right model. They mask the 429s well in Gemini-Cli - if an endpoint is rate limited, they try another, or route to another model, etc to keep service availability up. Your experience on the 429s is consistent with mine - the 429s is the first thing they need to fix. Fix that and they have a solid model at a good price point. I use my own coding agent (https://github.com/hsaliak/std_slop https://github.com/hsaliak/std_slop) and not being able to bring my (now cancelled) AI account with Google to it is a bummer. I'd still use it with the Code Assist Standard license if the google cloud API subscription allows for it but I have no clarification.

TiredOfLife 7mo ago

Incompetence of Google is amazing. They take an existing thing like Windsurf and somehow make it constantly coredump. And can't fix it for months.

chaostheory 7mo ago

> to address violations of the Antigravity Terms of Service (ToS), specifically the use of 3rd party tools or proxies to access Antigravity resources and quotas Translation: Google doesn’t want you using Gemini oauth with openclaw

zero0529 7mo ago

I am sick and tired of companies forcing a shitty fork of vscode down my throat. If I am paying let me use your api how I wish to. Most people aren’t malicious and just want to use their own workflow.

wiskinator 7mo ago

Without the context of “Antigravity” being a product name this headline is science fiction gold.

burgerone 7mo ago

https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/discussions/20632#discussioncomment-15957380 https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/discussions/2063... This comment resonated with me in particular.

verdverm 7mo ago
thank you, I've been putting in work on /new

meling 7mo ago

What’s my remedy when Google’s product (Gemini 3.1 pro high) makes a “grave” mistake? This is unrelated to the bans that’s been happening recently, but wanted to share … This morning I asked Gemini to “save” its output to a local file. However it did more than that … it committed the file (along with several unrelated staged changes that was not ready to be committed) and even pushed the changes to GitHub. I’ve never asked any model to commit, let alone push… I’m not impressed; actually a bit disappointed that it would do this without any warning up front. This happened in Antigravity.

verdverm 7mo ago
Tool confirmation and controls, every LLM with any instructions is susceptible to this "grave mistake", it's in the "nature" Or just don't give it the keys, this is my strategy. Put them in a box with specific tools and access. See also The Lethal Trifecta

isaachinman 7mo ago

The deeper issue here isn't about Antigravity specifically. It's that email is most people's de facto digital identity. Every password reset, every 2FA recovery, every account verification flows through it. When a company can revoke access to your email over a ToS violation in a completely unrelated product, the stakes are disproportionate. The fix is surprisingly straightforward: own your domain, use a provider that focuses on email, and keep your client separate from your provider. Standard IMAP means all three pieces are interchangeable. If one fails, swap it out. (I work on Marco [0], an IMAP email client. The number of people looking to decouple from Gmail/Google has been growing steadily, definitely a current trend.) [0] https://marcoapp.io https://marcoapp.io

NamlchakKhandro 7mo ago

If i can't use PiMono with the service then the service is effectively dead to market

sreekanth850 7mo ago

Kindly fix update bug, everytime when i close it, app get un installed.

abhitriloki 7mo ago

[dead]

unit149 7mo ago

[dead]

Verdex 7mo ago

In my mind Google is the one AI provider which is more or less guaranteed to make it past the next 2-5 years. Maybe anthropic and openai can be profitable with current model. But they'll never get to stop investing in next model while Google is there with infinite money. So either scaling stops hard here pretty soon so that spending can stabilize or else the investors are going to be showing up asking for several pounds of flesh. Suddenly 'dont get left behind, this is the worst these models will ever be' sounds a lot more like 'get locked in with a hyper giant that'll destroy your livelihood and not notice'. Although who knows, maybe local models will be a thing (however when your dev team gets banned with no explanation and the next milestone is coming up somehow I don't expect that transition to go sufficiently quick).