Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnebgd | Hacker News Reader

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

> just revoked antigravity access

That's exactly what they did, plus Gemini CLI and Code Assist, which are the same product in different formats.

I’ll go further: there should be laws addressing account consolidation. Getting banned from an Apple or Google account is an incredibly wide blast radius. It would be like being banned from buying Unilever or Nestle food from your grocery store.

Email providers should be utilities and also legally require a warrant before disclosing any information whatsoever to the government.

Unfortunately the government is full of corrupt geriatrics who do not understand technology and are paid to continue not understanding technology as they sign bills prepared for them by ALEC.

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.

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.

>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?

Chrome is an HTTP client that accesses webservers at specified addresses.

Antigravity and OpenClaw are HTTP clients that access webservers at specified addresses.

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.

Most people would agree both that getting rid of cheating is desirable and that the methods of control exerted over users to accomplish it is questionable. It's one of the few freedom/security tradeoffs where people generally agree we have to come down on the side of authoritarian, because otherwise it destroys online gaming as a whole. That scenario doesn't apply here. The world is a complex place.

That's not what stealing is.

"steal" is semantically incorrect here.

Only Antigravity and Gemini access was banned, not email or other google account stuff.

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?

It's very easy to believe, and that's how Google bans usually go. Probably nothing more to it than that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com