AOL outages and service status in Ilkley, England

Problems in the last 24 hours in Ilkley, England

The chart below shows the number of AOL reports we have received in the last 24 hours from users in Ilkley, 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 Near Ilkley, England

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in Ilkley and nearby locations:

• 
  Jason Weir (@jaseweir) reported 4 minutes ago from Bradford, England

  @AOLSupportHelp this number is unobtainable in the UK I have DM aol support

• 
  Jason Weir (@jaseweir) reported 41 minutes ago from Bradford, England

  @AOLSupportHelp I have been told to reach out to UK customer service How can I reach out if I CANNOT CONTACT YOU VIA EMAIL OR TELEPHONE

• 
  Sam Clark (@clarkswfc) reported 56 minutes ago from Leeds, England

  @AOLSupportHelp @aolmail is there a problem with downloading attachments in emails? Can’t seem to open any. Any advice? Get an error code EC 4008?

AOL Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Ang•el / מלאך (@AngelCWilliams) reported 3 minutes ago

  Rabbis and Rabbonias Tell Us Eliyahu Kin Shepardic David the Prince Used Illegal AOL Punters To Harbor My Bad Boy Entertainment Account

• 
  UltraMan (@RZVLAZ) reported 8 minutes ago

  @washingtonpost AOL dialup internet is number one internet service provider again. What a time to be alive!

• 
  Robert (@RobertKidd0x) reported 8 minutes ago

  I'm old enough to remember the days when people said the internet would never catch on and just be a fad. Look how far we've come from dial-up and AOL. We're at a similar beginning now with AI. When change is unavoidable, you have to embrace it, if you are to survive.

• 
  Lobster Thermidor (@scenicresorts) reported 9 minutes ago

  There was an Internet before the internet. My parents bought an IBM PS1 from sears as our first modern computer when I was in elementary school. It came with Prodigy which was like a big BBS and a free trial of Compuserve, which I think was the predecessor to AOL, both ran on dial up. I liked compuserve better because it had chat rooms but it had some heinous bill by the minute rate once you exhausted the free trial. At 8 years old the only thing that occurred to me to do with this technology was to relentlessly and nonsensically troll the chat rooms until I ultimately got banned from the entire platform. Well, a month later my mom gets a $200 bill from compuserve (I blew well past the free trial) and she calls them irate. Apparently in this call she was told I ran up the charges and btw I was also banned. She couldn’t believe this so I guess she asked why I was banned and the rep told her I was spamming their chat rooms saying “I like big breasted women” which was apparently against their terms of service and they would not be refunding anything given my behaviour. Got home from 3rd grade that day to get quite an ear full about this. But I guess I get bonus points for being banned from the internet before there even was an internet. I still like big breasted women tho you can’t hold me down.

• 
  Blessed E v (@Blessed_EV1221) reported 11 minutes ago

  @AwakenedOutlaw AOl is right on right on! Or she's just down right lying because she knows lefties love fraud - so Cloward-Piven, blame your enemy for what you are doing. Projection!

• 
  Davo (@RegisLeDavo) reported 13 minutes ago

  Need wee Phillie back down the AoL til the window shuts because I need to know what ******** is actually happening in the building

• 
  jah🪬 (@JahdaKisura) reported 17 minutes ago

  @elefaantz literally like i love mel and sol but admitted mel ate sol up but i still agree w aol on the bryce and trinity thing. and then amora ate mel up so bad and that’s okay!!!😭 your faves can be wrong but they don’t get that

• 
  Steve Harvey 🇬🇧🇨🇦 (@steveharvey2001) reported 18 minutes ago

  @AntiEVidiots When EVs were niche, driving one was like being part of a community with a shared secret. Similar to being on the internet in the early 1990s, before the AOL hordes turned up with their poor netiquette.

• 
  Paul Walsh (@Paul__Walsh) reported 20 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.

• 
  Jeremy Cherry (@CHERRY2TIMES) reported 22 minutes ago

  @latimes Yep the failed Mapquest MapQuest was the original online mapping site, launched in nineteen ninety-six by a spin-off from a printing company’s cartography division. It went public, then AOL bought it in two thousand, for about one point one billion dollars. That was the peak. Google Maps launched in two thousand five and ate its lunch — free, faster, better satellite imagery. AOL sold MapQuest to AOL’s own parent in two thousand ten for about one hundred seventy million, a fraction of what they’d paid. It still exists as a stripped-down site, but it’s a ghost of what it was.