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

Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

discuss.ai.google.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 752 posts

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#691

Post by joshuamorton »

jacquesm wrote: post #560
joshuamorton wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be more explicit, > google would be tracking who people's partners are is a misunderstanding of that comment. Nothing they said implies that Google is tracking who people's partners are. You're welcome to have whatever opinions you are about companies, but I'd also hope that you're careful not to read conspiracies into places where they aren't stated, especially in about institutions you have preconceptions abou…

That is exactly what that comment implies. Whether it is tracked explicitly or implicitly, the idea that there is a matrix that establishes your linkage to other accounts is the bit that I take issue with because the conclusion for me is that Google is able to infer things about the people they hold data on that they never ever should have access to. If you have a credible alternative explanation of what it does mean…

> This all revolves around implied ability... Google should not have this capability

The entire "ability" here is, as far as I can tell, is that it's possible to connect accounts to IP addresses. This is something that practically every system does. HN does it to stop abuse and ban-dodging. Wikipedia does it. You're reading an incredible amount of bad faith into the concept of IP bans.

> but effectively you are defending your employer from a claim of gathering data without consent.

I'm very specifically not doing that. I've made no comment on what the practices of any particular company are. Ultimately I don't know. What I do know is that the comment you're replying to doesn't say the things you keep implying. If your goal is to silence any disagreement, please feel free to continue speaking like this, but if your actually interested in engaging, I'd implore you to appreciate that I'm speaking for myself and not threaten me with..whatever you're implying here.

> This all revolves around implied ability, I don't give a rats ass about whether or not there is an actual implementation of that ability

I mean this is critical. If all you care about is the "ability" every site on the internet that you can log into has the "ability". All of them, every single one. The stance you're taking here is that a website supporting the ability to log in inherently violates your privacy because, whether or not it does, it has the ability to track information that could correlate your account with other accounts (and many of them do!)

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#692

Post by DANmode »

cube00 wrote: post #539
DANmode wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who did you move to from Gmail? How’d you make out?

Get your own domain, then it doesn't matter which provider you use because you can always re-point the domain and not have to upend your life changing email addresses everywhere.

Yes.

There’s been varying degrees of ease of migrating mail out of mailboxes, though.

Curious anyone recently has had an easy time on both ends, and no regrets.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#693

Post by panarky »

RobotToaster wrote: post #652
saalweachter wrote: post #624

So purely from a hacker perspective, I'm amused at the whining . Like, a corporation had a weakness you could exploit to get free/cheap thing. Fair game. Then someone shares the exploit with a bunch of script kiddies, they exploit it to the Nth degree, and the company immediately notices and shuts everyone down. Like, my dudes, what did you think was going to happen? You treasure these little tricks, use them cautiou…

> you could exploit to get free/cheap thing $249/mo isn't cheap

If you pay $249 to get $1,200 of compute, "cheap" seems like the right word.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#694

Post by cyberax »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #447
cyberax wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, my fault. I studied economics in Russia, and the term "dumping" was used in a more general sense as "selling goods or services below their cost". Russian laws officially use the term "monopolistically low prices", and prohibit them if the entity engaging in such pricing holds a dominating presence in the market (and not necessarily for the goods that are being underpriced). A correct term for the US is "pr…

> I studied economics in Russia, and the term "dumping" was used in a more general sense as "selling goods or services below their cost" Oooh! Do you have a recommendation for a translation of a Russian economics text? I’m particularly curious of Soviet-era texts that work on theory without prices. > correct term for the US is "predatory pricing", and it's also prohibited by the Sherman Act Sherman prohibits the “res…

> Oooh! Do you have a recommendation for a translation of a Russian economics text? I’m particularly curious of Soviet-era texts that work on theory without prices.

I don't think they exist? The Soviet Union used prices internally as an accounting tool. It essentially had two separate currencies: the actual physical currency that regular people owned and the virtual "accounting" currency. The accounting currency could not be converted into the real one, except for salary payments that were tightly regulated.

Once the USSR allowed some inter-conversion channels in the early 80-s its economy predictably got blown up as a result.

> Sherman prohibits the “restraint of trade or commerce” [1]. The word “price” never appears in its text. In practice, predatory pricing is a tightly-regulated term that doesn’t generally prohibit selling goods below cost

The Sherman Act is a framing law that establishes the authority to regulate monopolies, and it's on purpose rather vague in its wording.

A more concrete law here is the Robinson-Patman Act, which prohibits illegal price discrimination, including pricing substantially similar goods differently for different purchasers.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#695

Post by cube00 »

DANmode wrote: post #692
cube00 wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get your own domain, then it doesn't matter which provider you use because you can always re-point the domain and not have to upend your life changing email addresses everywhere.

Yes. There’s been varying degrees of ease of migrating mail out of mailboxes, though. Curious anyone recently has had an easy time on both ends, and no regrets.

imapsync and self host dovecot, there's something satisfying knowing all your mail is 1000s of little files on your own NAS.

At least it was when we could afford hard drives.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#696

Post by renewiltord »

quantum_magpie wrote: post #687
renewiltord wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like "you can use my car to drive around as much as you want so long as you don't drive to another coast on a highway" and then you drive to another coast on a highway and get mad when I won't give you my car next time.

No, it’s more like you have 10k km to drive in this car. And then, after you actually drive it for 10k km on “unauthorized” highways, they ban you. That’s why analogies are for fucking idiots. There is a true example — you bought access to use your account for n tokens, and google got pissy that you didn’t use the tokens in their spyware ecosystem. For you analogy loving fucks, it’s like the arcades selling their pro…

Well, your premise is false because you do not actually buy access for a stated number of tokens. I used the analogy because you have trouble getting facts straight so indeed you fall into the category that you describe there.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#697

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

tovej wrote: post #689
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reason #1642 that the technology industry in the EU sucks…

This is not it. This is reason #1 that the tech industry in the US is so dystopian.

I’m sure that developers who work for boring old enterprises who make twice as much their EU counterparts would disagree. Let alone those working at BigTech and adjacent.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#698

Post by cyberax »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #682
tovej wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. They were. The US just hasn't enforced antitrust laws in decades.

So now a business shouldn’t be able to borrow money either to start a new initiative? Should they have instead charged customers enough from day one to fund growth? So the first 1000 or so customers should have been charged enough so they could spend an extra $16 Billion?

If they're using their overwhelming size to lock out smaller competitors that can't put up a similar collateral?

Probably a good idea. And it looks like Netflix simply needed to make the service a bit more expensive?

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#699

Post by Havoc »

xnx wrote: post #492

Additional information from Google employee https://x.com/_mohansolo/status/2025766889205739899 : "We’ve been seeing a massive increase in malicious usage of the Anitgravity backend that has tremendously degraded the quality of service for our users. We needed to find a path to quickly shut off access to these users that are not using the product as intended. We understand that a subset of these users were not aware…

It's a bit leftfield for sure, but "malicious"?

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#700

Post by 8note »

bigyabai wrote: post #675
miroljub wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So purely from a hacker perspective, I'm amused at the whining. > Like, a corporation had a weakness you could exploit to get free/cheap thing. Fair game. From a pure hacker perspective, I'm surprised there are people calling a legitimate usage a "weakness you could exploit"? What weakness? What exploit? People have been using it in a way that was technically possible. And they paid for it, many purchased the produ…

> they call people calling out Google for their monopolistic behavior whining. Google's monopoly is not in AI, it's advertisement. When you accuse them of ridiculous and unfounded crimes, you're diluting the chance of Google being held accountable. As someone that wants to see Google ripped apart by the FTC, we can't just lie and say everything Google does is criminal.

the monopoly here is on web indexing, isnt it?
Post reply on HN