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

191–200 of 230 posts

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#191

Post by hboon »

mulmen wrote: post #186
nextaccountic wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Use your own domain to sign up for a paid email service, provided by a company that focuses on email. Note you don't need to pay. just use zoho mail or any other free email that lets you bring your own domain. Switch email providers as needed without changing your domain The trouble with paying is that if you forget to pay, you may lose email. (arguably this is also a problem with domains, generally you should pay…

I prefer to pay for the product so I do not become the product.

Zoho lets you pay a small monthly (yearly?) fee and link several domains to it.

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#192

Post by oofbey »

ph4rsikal wrote: post #188
oofbey wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

But I bet you they still acted like they were the smartest people in the room, right? Charming isn’t it?

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#193

Post by Aurornis »

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 :)

I’m amazed at how many people think this happened, despite it not being true.

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#194

Post by charcircuit »

oofbey wrote: post #192
ph4rsikal wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But I bet you they still acted like they were the smartest people in the room, right? Charming isn’t it?

That has not been my experience working with Google employees at all.

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#195

Post by Aurornis »

johnebgd wrote: post #12
gman83 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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?

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#196

Post by CamperBob2 »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #163
CamperBob2 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh.

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#198

Post by agentifysh »

jascha_eng wrote: post #5

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 wrote this as a work around to use my subscriptions for claude, chatgpt pro, grok from codex cli but seems like gemini is already broken and will require another approach after this

https://github.com/agentify-sh/desktop

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#199

Post by rhdunn »

gmerc wrote: post #67
aliljet wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

took about 30 minutes to switch to proton mail

Now move all the services and accounts you have registered to that account, along with all the friends and family who have your old email account.

Re: Addressing Antigravity Bans and Reinstating Access

#200

Post by sneak »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #167
sneak wrote: 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. 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.

Technically speaking, they haven’t been able to. There’s really no way of stopping someone using an alternate client if it appears to the server the same way.

The only reason video game cheating is more difficult is because it uses custom protocols and message types, and it needs to be reverse engineered. Usually it’s just easier to reuse the existing game client and patch it to report to the server that everything is normal.

It’s why anticheat runs in the kernel now.

Post reply on HN