Google Antigravity TOS: 3rd party usage can get Google account suspended

> A politically impossible outcome that isn't worth hanging our hopes on.

> A more realistic approach is legislation that either forbids providers from suspending or otherwise limiting access to any government integrated system or simply forbidding these types of integrations altogether.

There's more history in the US of successful legislation aimed at breaking up big companies than at that sort of specific narrow technically-aware well-executed regulation.

The former is blunt force. It's relatively easy to target and make effective. It just needs enough ground-level support to get enough people from both parties on board - and we're seeing some shifts that way in the current Republican mishmash of groups.

The latter needs excellent technical knowledge and resistance to super-sophisticated lobbying and loophole-creation. It's very hard to get right.

i was using antigravity pretty heavily for a while in the spring, it seemed to be a good value for my usage. then i got banned out of the blue for "suspected" ToS violations, with a notification that heavily hinted it was because of openclaw.

i've never used openclaw, never tried to use my google ai subscription anywhere other than the antigravity app. but apparently just "our ai mistakenly suspects you might be using openclaw" is enough to get your google account temporarily suspended. not worth the risk for me, i need a google account more than i need antigravity.

and the ban would be bad enough, but the communication was nonexistent. just a sign-in error on the antigravity app, then a day later it updated to show a vauge warning about openclaw with a link to a random google form to submit an appeal, and then a couple days later my account magically started working again.

Did you use Chrome?

> I assume that by this you mean something more nuanced than "we should abolish the FAA and let the airplanes crash until private enterprise solves it."

Strawman fallacy: It is in the interests of private enterprise to not have their $100-million+ airplanes crash, because it means $100-million+ going up in smoke. The owners of those planes would therefore have an interest in not having them crash.

> Or maybe "Let drug dealers (pharmaceutical companies) sell whatever the free market will bear without testing, safety, or the ability to hold them responsible."

Under this scenario, if the public finds out that a drug is harmful/lethal, the public jerks away from that drug towards solutions that have a reputation of working.

Is the resulting rate of fatality/worse-QOL lower than (a central authority filtering out drugs & holding them to standards)? No, definitely not. But the gap between the two is not infinite, and in most cases falls into an order of magnitude of difference.

-----

> I only ask, because there are some people who unironically think that we'd be more safe going back to the time before OSHA, or medical licensing, and some of them hang out here.

An axiom of (feeble-mindedness in the average person) is proposed here. People are as good/competent as the standards that they are held to.

> medical licensing

There's a difference between a certification of competency, and a deliberate constriction of the supply of medical residencies.

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/5550556-residency-cap...