Live data from Hacker News

Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

github.com

111–120 of 230 posts

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s be great if Google just revoked antigravity access if terms were violated. No need to disable the entire account.

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.

"steal" is semantically incorrect here.

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#112
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> 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.

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well ... the clear signal is that people want to use Google's models but not Google products

Most people have actually just been using Opus through antigravity

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?

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#114
post #45
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use a custom domain and don't use google for email. And if you do use your gmail address just forward it and start to transition to something else. With time everything of importance has been transferred.

How do you even pull away from a Gmail address? I'm nearly twenty years into that service. Getting banned would be absolutely devastating...

It will never be easier than right now. Every day you stay, you dig their moat around you even deeper

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#115
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

>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?

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#116
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read the website? https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/agent-sdk/overview >Unless previously approved, Anthropic does not allow third party developers to offer claude.ai login or rate limits for their products, including agents built on the Claude Agent SDK. Please use the API key authentication methods described in this document instead. Seems clear-cut to me.

Yes, I have. And it's obvious that restriction was put there for a reason. The most obvious possible reason is that snatching OAuth made it possible for third party tools to utilize subscription to the fullest - like OpenClaw. But these tools, including openclaw, didn't have to snatch the OAuth tokens, they could have used claude code built in headless stdio and consequences for Anthropic would be exactly the same. O…

They just want people to pay more via API. Technically, your example would violate ToS, because the purpose matters. Like a license file may allow personal use and prohibit commercial use (unless you obtain a commercial license).

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#117
post #83
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

> 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 pro…

Headless is fine as long as there's a human in the loop. Remove the human, their bills skyrocket.

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people have actually just been using Opus through antigravity

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?

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

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#119
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a service that doesn't want your business. If you care, message them about it I've never once run into a service with such a restriction, but I can imagine someone being that short-sighted. I have seen services that only support "log in with Google or Facebook", which is comparably terrible.

Discogs will not let me login with my own domain (of 30 years) and required one of the big providers. It kept complaining about "risky domain". But that is the only incident I can think of.

Discogs

Who? Never heard of them, and it sounds like there's a good reason for that.

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#120

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…

I think the deal is quite clear: subscription for personal usage in their products, API token for everything else. You get a rebate for subscription because they get the data. I would be quite sad if they removed the subscription option just to not be "anticompetitive".
Post reply on HN