AOL outages and service status in Okehampton, England

Problems in the last 24 hours in Okehampton, England

The chart below shows the number of AOL reports we have received in the last 24 hours from users in Okehampton, England and surrounding areas. An outage is declared when the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line.

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

AOL Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  JereMemez (@JereMemez) reported 34 seconds ago

  @Kngsolo305 I was late Gen X. I definitely got a bug dose of video games and AOL hit me hard right after high school. I remember being grounded from going outside and having to stay in my room. It was horrible. Now, kids are punished by NOT being allowed to sit in their rooms. So much has changed.

• 
  Amanda Rankin (@tigerbitewand) reported 2 minutes ago

  Catfish people I mean like for real they're scamming stupid people I'm not a stupid person on XP I could actually go into the register keys and pull out Trojan horses like AOL... It was not allowed on my computer it was not one of my emails Yahoo was... Anybody else recognize how

• 
  Antibishonen (@antibishonen) reported 3 minutes ago

  @KevDGrussing Larry wants to control media so bad, he forgot AOL and ATT tried to do the same and failed

• 
  DOT_Singularity🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@DOT_singularity) reported 4 minutes ago

  @SteveMoraco Boo- friggidty-hooo, This is nothing new. I want the AI to be able to pull in context from **** I wrote on AOL in 1995. My online **** game was strong! If you're Laboring under some expectation of ever having true privacy in the digital world , it's a fools errand. Crack on.

• 
  PPE (@planert41) reported 6 minutes ago

  The internet enabled "connectivity". All these isolated pockets of information and communities and people always existed before, but being able to connect them together with the internet was what created the huge marginal value. I think the gains falls into 3 general buckets: 1) Connecting/Aggregating supply and demand. People have way more choices now from both supply and demand side - Amazon, Facebook (for human interests/social communities) 2) Efficiency gains from better coordination - Amazon 2 Day Delivery. 3) Frictionless instant distribution - Netflix streaming movies into your home Everyone has been talking about who extracts the most value from the AI stack, and if you look at the internet it's undoubtedly the applications that did. The rest of the stack essentially became commoditized. So let's get back to AI. In the same vein, i think AI enables "intelligence". Before this if you wanted to build a website, you had to hire someone who had the "intelligence" or gain the "intelligence" yourself to build it. Now you just ask AI and it does it for you. Intelligence/Execution is now cheap. Everyone has an intelligent PHD who knows a little of everything working for them on their computer now. OpenAI/Anthropic doesn't feel too different than say AOL back in the day when it was the only way consumers could access the internet. Eventually people had alternatives and it went away although for the internet providers, AOL didn't necessarily provide "better" internet than its competitors but the frontier AI models could potentially. AI Chips/Hardware now don't seem too dissimilar to how modems/routers/optic cables were for the internet. It'll still be short squeezed in the short term, but we'll eventually get more alternatives and supply. Energy/infrastructure - Eventually ppl will build data centers in the middle of nowhere with energy supply and it'll be fine. There will be alternatives. So i think eventually all the value will accrue to the application layer as everything else gets commoditized? But what would those applications look like? One thought experiment would be to consider which companies/products couldn't exist without the internet. Everyone in FAANG could be considered here, so maybe the trick is to find companies that couldn't exist without AI? Walmart would still exist without the internet, but not Amazon. Amazon figured out how to give itself an unfair advantage with the internet. Google obviously couldn't exist without the internet. So what are the similar parallels for AI? Maybe something like Harvey? What could i do with AI that i couldn't before (besides coding?). Most things still just feel like marginal efficiency gains (besides coding), instead of completely newly unlocked capabilities. I could imagine like a personal AI health assistant that will give you the vitamins or cook personalized meals (via contractor) you need everyday based on your data. Or maybe like an AI home system that helps you schedule for maintenance/repairs without you needing to think about it? Perhaps the internet solved the distribution problem, so the bet should just be on companies who already have a lock on distribution like $CRM and bet that they'll figure AI out. But perhaps we still need more time for AI to play out to identify these potential long term winners. We still don't really know what we can actually do with AI yet

• 
  Sir Ernest Shackleton (@ErniShackleton) reported 7 minutes ago

  @MapQuest Who ******** used map quest anymore. I thought it died along with AOL

• 
  SHAKSINGH (@shaksingh) reported 10 minutes ago

  I still remember how the entire anti-hindu gang had started abusing AOL over a non existent issue.

• 
  Paul Walsh (@Paul__Walsh) reported 13 minutes ago

  People keep asking why Apple allowed OpenAI to build a ChatGPT integration for Messages. Do get to the point, I don’t think Apple anticipated a company using the permissions required by ChatGPT specifically to read, analyse and store people’s Messages when the Messages app includes iMessage and not just SMS. The entire point of iMessage is that it’s rich media *and* end to end encrypted. The permissions OpenAI needs exist for legitimate software, and Apple warns people before granting them. Backup software needs Full Disk Access to back up protected files. Security software needs it to inspect files for malicious activity. Disk utilities need it to search, recover and manage protected files. It’s similar to WebView. It gave developers a way to display parts of an app that could change without requiring a new app release and App Store review, such as terms of service, privacy policies and other remotely hosted content. In 2014, I predicted developers would eventually use WebView across every major app, with some apps built almost entirely inside it. I also warned this would create a security problem because WebView had no protection against dangerous links or malicious code typically found on webpages. Developers could make a WebView look identical to the native app, so people wouldn’t know whether they were using the app itself or interacting with a website. Today, in-app security is a multibillion dollar industry because it’s obvious that opening links inside an app might not be as safe as it should be. Most predictions, especially in the context of digital risk, are not believed by a lot of people. But they become obvious eventually. Today, I’m saying OpenAI’s ChatGPT integration with Apple Messages is more dangerous for some people than almost anything else on the market. Of course someone can take screenshots and send them to the FBI, repeat something they were told, or deliberately share a private conversation. That completely misses the point. None of those things is equivalent to giving an AI service automated access to read, analyse and store entire message histories involving everyone someone communicates with. Comparing deliberate human disclosure with automated access at scale ignores the capability that makes this fundamentally different. And why it removes the main benefit of end to end encryption. I can’t comprehend how security professionals can defend anything that undermines the purpose of end to end encryption by saying "but encryption isn’t broken". Protecting messages while they’re being transmitted means very little if an agent can systematically read, analyse and store them before they’re sent or after they’re received. Apple permissions have legitimate purposes. This particular use of them is the problem. During the early 2000s, I advocated for browser extensions. During the mid to late 2000s, before the first iPhone when mobile web didn't exist, I advocated for mobile web instead of WAP. In 2015, I advocated for chatbot integrations across messaging platforms and business tools. I’m a developer advocate, an open standards advocate, child safety advocate, and privacy advocate. I co-founded 2 W3C initiatives, including the Mobile Web Initiative, where I was tasked with rewriting Tim Berners-Lee’s vision of "One Web". And was a significant contributor to 8 technical specifications, including the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. I care about humanity. I don’t advocate for one thing in isolation from everything else. I’m a technical expert in specific areas with OSINT skills and 30 years across web, telecom, and mobile. 💡 I consider every stakeholder affected by open standards, technology, and legislation. Sometimes convenience justifies a privacy tradeoff. Sometimes privacy should take priority over security, and sometimes security should take priority over privacy. None of these should be treated as an absolute regardless of the consequences. In 2017, the PKI Consortium asked me to advise them privately and write about the impact DV SSL certificates and HTTPS Everywhere were having on anti phishing security. I faced fierce criticism from privacy advocates who argued that the connection should be encrypted even if the person on the other end was an impersonator. Those were their words. If you care, search for "Insecure Elephant in the Room". The fundamental reasons phishing works were the same when I was impersonated in 1996 when phishing was first discovered on the AOL network, the same when I wrote about it in 2017, and the same today. Now I have to argue with some security professionals defending something that undermines the purpose of end to end encryption. They need to look beyond the mechanics of software and encryption. Technology is an enabler. We need to consider human behaviour, how people will actually use a capability, and what happens when that behaviour occurs at scale. Also, the potential intent that goes beyond a website or privacy statement. I’ve faced this repeatedly over the years. Today, when I argue that government policies and age verification introduced in the name of online child safety and preventing child exploitation are actually surveillance measures, child safety advocates accuse me of not caring about children. This isn’t rocket science. Add AI to everything, even if you’re willing to accept the risks to yourself. But please don’t add AI in ways that undermine another person’s right to privacy or, depending on the context, their personal safety. Some people's lives depend on their ability to rely on end to end encryption. We're not talking about SMS. 💡Criticising the technology used to pursue an objective doesn’t mean opposing the objective.

• 
  The Smart Gremlin (@TheCultOfTwist) reported 13 minutes ago

  @VaultOfInsights Getting stalked and **** by total randos on AOL did require an account however... go figure.

• 
  Kevin K (@SloppyK556) reported 14 minutes ago

  @Irina_exh 18. Never sent a postcard and never had an AOL address.