Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 230 posts

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#161

Post by Sophira »

hogwasher wrote: post #136
calcifer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use your own domain to sign up for a paid email service, provided by a company that focuses on email. I use Fastmail, but there are many other options. Set up forwarding in Gmail to your new address. Then, whenever you log in to a website or app with your Gmail, take a moment to change it to your new address. In a few weeks, most of your important accounts will be covered. In a few months, almost everything you still…

^this is the way. You can buy a domain name for like $10 per year; I recommend getting it from porkbun.com. Cloudflare.com is good too, EXCEPT if you buy your domain from them, you'll be required to use their nameservers until and unless you transfer your domain elsewhere (which you won't be able to do for a while). Though to be fair, their free DNS is good and lots of people use it anyway. It makes email setup sligh…

> Your $20 per year domain might suddenly become a $300 or $3000 per year domain for no reason but greed, and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

Seconding this. Tthis is exactly what happened with the .sexy TLD: https://www.reddit.com/r/Domaining/comments/uia8pc/sexy_tlds...

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#162

Post by fooker »

joquarky wrote: post #109
fooker wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is evil to block your email and hold your photos hostage over it though :)

I would question the judgment of anyone who thought they would maintain "don't be evil" beyond IPO.

Your argument is basically : human being will always choose money over ethics.

Could be true, but a somewhat depressing worldview.

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#163

Post by throwaway2037 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #119
genxy wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is a top 1000 web site according to Alexa rankings. It would take you about 5 seconds to Google about it. Probably less time than it took you to write your post.

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#164

Post by isaachinman »

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

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#165

Post by squeaky-clean »

exitb wrote: post #63
n8m8 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the "3rd party product" is you selfhosting FOSS, then that's you (OpenClaw users)

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?

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.

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#166

Post by squeaky-clean »

fooker wrote: post #86
WarmWash wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

It is evil to block your email and hold your photos hostage over it though :)

That didn't happen though.

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#167

Post by squeaky-clean »

sneak wrote: post #112
NewsaHackO wrote: post #95

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.

By this logic video game companies shouldn't be allowed to ban cheaters.

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#168

Post by Hasnep »

stavros wrote: post #106
ithkuil wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This remains a problem for the personal account though (arguably what "primary account" meant in GP)

Can that account be upgraded to Workspace just to get the support?

If you can't access your account to upgrade it then I assume not

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#169

Post by verdverm »

smashah wrote: post #142
gruez wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. This is almost as realistic as "I wish netflix or youtube allowed me to use VLC to watch their content".

Why is that unrealistic? Think of it like the digital right-to-repair. I pay for it, I get to use it with any client I want. Simple.

Except that is a false equivalent, when you clicked "agree" you did so for their ToS to get a discount or bulk deal with strings attached. It's pretty easy these days to have a LLM extract the unique parts into a summary.

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#170

Post by verdverm »

meling wrote: post #157

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…

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

Post reply on HN