[tabs_or_spaces]

So the timeline is basically

* User uses Google oauth to integrate their open claw

* user gets banned from using Google AI services with no warning

* user still gets charged

If you go backwards, getting charged for services you can't access is rough. I feel sorry for those who are deeply integrated into Google services or getting banned on their main accounts. It's not a great situation.

Also, getting banned without warning is rough as well. I wonder if the situation will be different for business accounts as opposed what seems like personal accounts?

The ban itself seems fair though, google is allowed to restrict usage of their services. Even though it's probably not developer friendly, it's within their rights to do so.

I guess there's some level of post mortem to do on the openclaw side too.

* Why did openclaw allow Google anti gravity logins?

* The plugin is literally called "google-antigravity-auth", why didn't that give the signal to the maintainers?

* Why don't the maintainers, for an integration project, do due diligence checks on the terms of service of everything you're integrating with?

[Aurornis]

> * Why did openclaw allow Google anti gravity logins?

OpenClaw went from virtually unheard of to a sensation in a couple weeks. There was intense commit activity and the main author bragged about not even reading the code himself. It was all heavily AI driven and moving at an extreme rate. Everyone was competing to get their commits in because they wanted to be a part of it.

The entire project was a fast and furious experiment. Nobody was stopping to think if something was a good idea or not when someone published a plugin for using this endpoint. People just thought “cool!” and installed it.

[lucianbr]

That's how AI is supposed to be used, no? That's what the providers advertise - it increases development speed, a lot, it replaces devs and so on.

But I guess it's only ok when you work on regular joe facing projects, where the consequences of bugs are on powerless users. If the consequences are on Google, well, that's not acceptable now is it?

[shevy-java]

> Also, getting banned without warning is rough as well.

Agreed. The lesson is: do not become dependent on Google. Ever.

(Unfortunately I still use youtube and a chromium-based browser. Long-term I hope to find alternatives to both problems. Google search I no longer need because Google already ruined it a few years ago; the quality now is just horrible. I can not find anything useful with it anymore.)

[Chaosvex]

Literally just use Firefox.

[vincston]

What google search alternative have you found? Im trying out ecosia, duckduckgo and brave search, but i find their search results even worse, so in the second query i tend to bang to google..

[axus]

It doesn't seem fair at all; though I'm glad to see it's not as bad as I feared (yet?).

> Hoping for some transparency, I left a single, polite comment asking for clarification on why the update was removed. Surprisingly, my forum account was banned shortly after posting that question.

[bootsmann]

Have you seen the code of OpenClaw? It would not surprise me if there is a mistake in there somewhere that causes the bot to hammer google auth for the refresh token in a very identifiable manner because noone in that repo is bothering to look at the code before merging. Moved fast, broke things.

[anon84873628]

I don't understand step 1. OAuth client applications have to be registered in GCP, right? They have to request specific scopes for specific APIs, and there is a review process before they can be used by the public. Did none of that happen for the Open Claw client? How is it the users' fault for clicking a "Sign in with Google" button? And if there was a mistake, why not ban the whole client?

I could see a problem with logging into Antigravity then exfiltrating the tokens to use somewhere else... But that doesn't sound like what happened. (And then how would they know?)

I haven't used Open Claw, so what else am missing to make this make sense?

[integralpilot]

To my understanding, OpenClaw pretends to be Antigravity by using the Antigravity OAuth client ID (and doesn't have its own), and then the takes the token Google returns to instead use with OpenClaw.

When I first tried OpenClaw and chose Google Sign-In, I noticed the window appeared saying "Sign into Google Antigravity" with a Google official mark, and a warning it shouldn't be used to sign into anything besides official Google apps. I closed it immediately and uninstalled OpenClaw as this was suspicious to me, and it was a relatively new project then.

It amazes me that the maintainer(s) allowed something like this...

[fmbb]

1. Did a human really knowingly decide to allow that?

2. Did a human create the plugin?

3. Are the maintainers human?

By human I mean an animal that is intelligent enough to understand the agreements and what code they are writing.

[animuchan]

Most people aren't human then, sad.

[renegat0x0]

I think as a society we miss some kind of 'laws', or 'rules' around accounts and banning.

I feel that sometimes corporations have all 3 montesquieu powers. Google can define eulas, decide if you should be punished, and apply a ban.

Can a shop decide who to serve? I may be wrong, but big tech should not be able to 'just close' accounts, or demonetize accounts on their whim.

[RobotToaster]

> Why did openclaw allow Google anti gravity logins?

There's a good chance the plugin was written by gemini, why did it allow that?