Rahmat Wibowo criticized Google for suspending developers who used the OpenCode plugin with Antigravity OAuth, arguing the company punished legitimate paying users instead of actual abusers and identifying five logical fallacies in its enforcement design.

Google banned the doorway, not the burglar By Rahmat Wibowo From InfraLoka Rahmat Wibowo - June1,2026 Google banned the doorway, not the burglar. Alookat why suspending developers for using OpenCode with Antigravity OAuth solves a quota problem by punishing the wrong people, and what a sane enforcement policy would have looked like instead Google did not ban OpenCode. It banned the people who loggedintoit. Somewhere betweena community plugin and an automated trust-and- safety system, a quota-protection measure turned into blanket account suspensions, including for developers who were paying customers simply trying touse the models they'd already bought access to. Aplugin, an OAuth flow, anda shortcut Antigravity is Google's own Al coding environment, built around models like Gemini and routed through its own subscription quotas. OpenCodeis a separate, open-source terminal agent that supports many providers and auth flows. A community plugin, opencode- antigravity-auth, let OpenCode authenticate against Antigravity's OAuth flow, effectively letting a terminal tool borrow Antigravity's quota and model access without opening the Antigravity IDE atall Google's own Antigravity FAQ already states that third-party tools accessing Antigravity violate its Terms of Service. Once usage was detected, the response was swift: reports describe instant lockouts, shadow bans, and suspended accounts, including paid subscribers who say they assumed an “Sign in with Google” button was exactly what it looked like Three legitimate worries, one blunt response Concern 01: Quota arbitrage Subsidized access, unsubsidized use Antigravity's pricing assumes usage happens inside Antigravity. Routing that same subsidized quota into a terminal agent breaks the economics Google built the product around Concern 02: Product boundary Keeping Antigravity inside Antigravity Google wants Antigravity access to remaina feature of Antigravity, nota backend any third-party coding agent can pluginto forfree. Concern 03: Reliability "Degrades the experience for legitimate users" Google's framing is that unofficial access strains infrastructure meant for people using the product as intended None of these concerns are unreasonable. Platforms are allowed to protect their own economics. The problemisn't the worry. It's the instrument Google chose to addressit. The ban punishes the interface, not the abuse. The core failure of the enforcement design Five fallacies hiding inside a ToS clause Exhibit A: False equivalence "Third-party client" was treated as "abuser" Adeveloper using their own paid account through a different interface is not automatically a quota reseller or attacker. Collapsing "unofficial access" and "malicious use" into one category ignores the much larger group of people just trying to work in their terminal. Exhibit B: Slippery slope "If we allow this, everyone will abuseit" That's a possibility, not a demonstrated outcome. Rate limits, scoped tokens, and per-client registration exist precisely so platforms don't have to choose between "open the gates" and "ban on sight." Exhibit C: Category error Aproduct violation became an account punishment Misusing one feature of one product escalated into broader account-level consequences. The scope of the punishment didn't match the scope of the violation. Exhibit D: Appeal to the rulebook "It violates the Terms of Service" isn'ta design defense Pointing at the ToS explains why an action is legal. It says nothing about whether instant, unexplained suspension was the right way to enforceit. Exhibit E: Collective punishment Curious developers paid the same price as quota farmers If aminority used the plugin to stack accounts and evade limits, banning everyone who touched it punishes ordinary experimentation alongside genuine abuse. What enforcement could have looked like — m stint ye eee Taian thea peer pe en ne ogy pt dvi None of this requires Google to tolerate quota arbitrage. Itrequires Google to build the same kind of graduated, scoped enforcement that API platforms already use elsewhere, distinguishing a curious developer from an automated account-rotation scheme, instead of treating an OAuth screenasa tripwire. Closing argument Google wants developers building with Gemini. But penalizing them for trying to bring that workflow into the tools they already use sends the opposite signal. The fx was never “official IDE ornothing." Itwas an official API, clear limits, and enforcement that looks at what someone did, not just which window they did it through SERVICES fe hit infrastructure as ity Engin Allright! Imp