6 ms·

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, clearl

by 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.
- LiamPowell 7mo ago
  > just revoked antigravity access That's exactly what they did, plus Gemini CLI and Code Assist, which are the same product in different formats.
- TGower 7mo ago
  Only Antigravity and Gemini access was banned, not email or other google account stuff.
- NewsaHackO 7mo ago
  No Google account has been banned for this. People just keep spreading this lie because no one agrees that they have the right to steal the OAuth token.
  - sneak 7mo ago
    It's their OAuth token, it's not being stolen. It's just being copied from one place on their computer to another. This is no different than a competing browser importing your localStorage and cookies from Chrome on first launch.
    - NewsaHackO 7mo ago
      No, the OAuth token is supposed to be used solely with the context of a first-party app only. Clearly, if you need to extract the key by reverse engineering or set up a proxy to spoof requests to a service, you're doing something shady.
      - sneak 7mo ago
        > No, the OAuth token is supposed to be used solely with the context of a first-party app only. The web doesn't work like that. The operators of google.com saying you must only use Chrome to load it is a ridiculous concept. It's not spoofing to use your own access credentials on your own computer to access your own account on an HTTP API.
        NewsaHackO 7mo ago
        >The web doesn't work like that. The operators of google.com saying you must only use Chrome to load it is a ridiculous concept. I have no idea what you are talking about. Chrome? Are you sure you are replying to the right thread?
        sneak 7mo ago
        Chrome is an HTTP client that accesses webservers at specified addresses. Antigravity and OpenClaw are HTTP clients that access webservers at specified addresses.
- Aurornis 7mo ago
  How do so many people think this happened? All of the articles I’ve read have been clear that it did not happen. Yet it’s all over the comments here. Why?
  - DangitBobby 7mo ago
    It's very easy to believe, and that's how Google bans usually go. Probably nothing more to it than that.
crawshaw 7mo ago
The concern is not losing access to some new IDE for operating outside the terms of service. The concern is when you lose access to the IDE, you also lose access to your 20 year old Gmail account. A general problem for Google products is that everything is mixed together.
- BoredPositron 7mo ago
  But that's not what happened.
amiga386 7mo ago
Yes, our masters once again embarrass us unworthy peons with their endless grace, generosity and forebearance. How lucky we are to entrust our data and our lives to them!
- WarmWash 7mo ago
  Anyone can buy the tokens via the API and do whatever they want with them. Its not evil of Google to say "Here is an allotment of steeply discounted tokens, but you can only use them with our services."
  - fooker 7mo ago
    It is evil to block your email and hold your photos hostage over it though :)
    - ZekeSulastin 7mo ago
      Didn’t they only block Antigravity though, leaving other services available?
    - WarmWash 7mo ago
      They only blocked access to Antigravity and GeminiCLI for the offense.
    - joquarky 7mo ago
      I would question the judgment of anyone who thought they would maintain "don't be evil" beyond IPO.
      - fooker 7mo ago
        Your argument is basically : human being will always choose money over ethics. Could be true, but a somewhat depressing worldview.
    - squeaky-clean 7mo ago
      That didn't happen though.
zarzavat 7mo ago
Okay but they were paying customers paying $$$ for the service. Banning your customers without prior warning is not right, however sketchy their behaviour might appear. Even if it's obvious to Google that there's a difference between a Gemini API key and an Antigravity API key, it's not necessarily obvious to others. The correct and sane thing to do is to send them an email, with at most a 24 hour suspension. If they keep doing it despite being warned then by all means fire them.
exitb 7mo ago
If a 3rd party product advertises compatibility with a Google service and you use it to login via a first party Google login page, doesn’t the responsibility fall somewhere between the offending product and Google itself? In practice it’s structured pretty much like a phishing attempt. Notably some model providers explicitly allow that very flow, while others will ban you without notice.
- n8m8 7mo ago
  If the "3rd party product" is you selfhosting FOSS, then that's you (OpenClaw users)
  - exitb 7mo ago
    Why do you call it self-hosting? It appears to be installable app with a fancy homepage. At what point does the software being covered by an open license changes the responsibility model?
    - squeaky-clean 7mo ago
      That's exactly what self hosting is, you install some app on your own computer host(s). > At what point does the software being covered by an open license changes the responsibility model When you agree to an open license that says you're liable for anything and not the author of the software. > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
NicuCalcea 7mo ago
When's the last time you read the ToS of a service you signed up for?
- sowbug 7mo ago
  This would be a great job for an AI agent. Even better if a few million such agents collectively refused to agree to unconscionable terms.
jamesnorden 7mo ago
>It's great that Google is giving these users a second chance. I hope this is sarcasm. A permaban as the first action is never a good idea.
982307932084 7mo ago
[dead]
sneak 7mo ago
Telling your users they can't use certain software to access your HTTP API is exactly the same as telling people they can't use certain browsers to load https://google.com https://google.com.
theturtletalks 7mo ago
They were banning people and those people couldn’t even cancel their subscription. That’s a rookie mistake and you expect the same company to have a flawless ban system?

by gman83 7mo ago

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.
LiamPowell 7mo ago
> just revoked antigravity access That's exactly what they did, plus Gemini CLI and Code Assist, which are the same product in different formats.
TGower 7mo ago
Only Antigravity and Gemini access was banned, not email or other google account stuff.
NewsaHackO 7mo ago
No Google account has been banned for this. People just keep spreading this lie because no one agrees that they have the right to steal the OAuth token.
- sneak 7mo ago
  It's their OAuth token, it's not being stolen. It's just being copied from one place on their computer to another. This is no different than a competing browser importing your localStorage and cookies from Chrome on first launch.
  - NewsaHackO 7mo ago
    No, the OAuth token is supposed to be used solely with the context of a first-party app only. Clearly, if you need to extract the key by reverse engineering or set up a proxy to spoof requests to a service, you're doing something shady.
    - sneak 7mo ago
      > No, the OAuth token is supposed to be used solely with the context of a first-party app only. The web doesn't work like that. The operators of google.com saying you must only use Chrome to load it is a ridiculous concept. It's not spoofing to use your own access credentials on your own computer to access your own account on an HTTP API.
      - NewsaHackO 7mo ago
        >The web doesn't work like that. The operators of google.com saying you must only use Chrome to load it is a ridiculous concept. I have no idea what you are talking about. Chrome? Are you sure you are replying to the right thread?
        sneak 7mo ago
        Chrome is an HTTP client that accesses webservers at specified addresses. Antigravity and OpenClaw are HTTP clients that access webservers at specified addresses.
Aurornis 7mo ago
How do so many people think this happened? All of the articles I’ve read have been clear that it did not happen. Yet it’s all over the comments here. Why?
- DangitBobby 7mo ago
  It's very easy to believe, and that's how Google bans usually go. Probably nothing more to it than that.

crawshaw 7mo ago

The concern is not losing access to some new IDE for operating outside the terms of service. The concern is when you lose access to the IDE, you also lose access to your 20 year old Gmail account. A general problem for Google products is that everything is mixed together.

BoredPositron 7mo ago
But that's not what happened.

amiga386 7mo ago

Yes, our masters once again embarrass us unworthy peons with their endless grace, generosity and forebearance. How lucky we are to entrust our data and our lives to them!

WarmWash 7mo ago
Anyone can buy the tokens via the API and do whatever they want with them. Its not evil of Google to say "Here is an allotment of steeply discounted tokens, but you can only use them with our services."
- fooker 7mo ago
  It is evil to block your email and hold your photos hostage over it though :)
  - ZekeSulastin 7mo ago
    Didn’t they only block Antigravity though, leaving other services available?
  - WarmWash 7mo ago
    They only blocked access to Antigravity and GeminiCLI for the offense.
  - joquarky 7mo ago
    I would question the judgment of anyone who thought they would maintain "don't be evil" beyond IPO.
    - fooker 7mo ago
      Your argument is basically : human being will always choose money over ethics. Could be true, but a somewhat depressing worldview.
  - squeaky-clean 7mo ago
    That didn't happen though.

zarzavat 7mo ago

Okay but they were paying customers paying $$$ for the service. Banning your customers without prior warning is not right, however sketchy their behaviour might appear. Even if it's obvious to Google that there's a difference between a Gemini API key and an Antigravity API key, it's not necessarily obvious to others. The correct and sane thing to do is to send them an email, with at most a 24 hour suspension. If they keep doing it despite being warned then by all means fire them.

exitb 7mo ago

If a 3rd party product advertises compatibility with a Google service and you use it to login via a first party Google login page, doesn’t the responsibility fall somewhere between the offending product and Google itself? In practice it’s structured pretty much like a phishing attempt. Notably some model providers explicitly allow that very flow, while others will ban you without notice.

n8m8 7mo ago
If the "3rd party product" is you selfhosting FOSS, then that's you (OpenClaw users)
- exitb 7mo ago
  Why do you call it self-hosting? It appears to be installable app with a fancy homepage. At what point does the software being covered by an open license changes the responsibility model?
  - squeaky-clean 7mo ago
    That's exactly what self hosting is, you install some app on your own computer host(s). > At what point does the software being covered by an open license changes the responsibility model When you agree to an open license that says you're liable for anything and not the author of the software. > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

NicuCalcea 7mo ago

When's the last time you read the ToS of a service you signed up for?

sowbug 7mo ago
This would be a great job for an AI agent. Even better if a few million such agents collectively refused to agree to unconscionable terms.

jamesnorden 7mo ago

>It's great that Google is giving these users a second chance. I hope this is sarcasm. A permaban as the first action is never a good idea.

982307932084 7mo ago

[dead]

sneak 7mo ago

Telling your users they can't use certain software to access your HTTP API is exactly the same as telling people they can't use certain browsers to load https://google.com https://google.com.

theturtletalks 7mo ago

They were banning people and those people couldn’t even cancel their subscription. That’s a rookie mistake and you expect the same company to have a flawless ban system?