AOL outages and service status in Marshall, Texas

Problems in the last 24 hours in Marshall, Texas

The chart below shows the number of AOL reports we have received in the last 24 hours from users in Marshall, Texas 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:

• 
  dyemane89 (@dyemane89) reported 7 minutes ago

  Hey @AOL I was charged for a subscription that wasn't supposed to charge me until the free trial was over. Please help ASAP. I didn't get a free trial when it offered it just took the payment.

• 
  ColonelPopcorn🫡🇺🇸🍿 (@WickedAwake) reported 12 minutes ago

  They siphoned our pennies so easily. Not to mention the fact that the prices are so overinflated in so many products. Bleach went from .49 to $10. Rubber bands and envelopes are $7! And then they put a bunch of poisons in their products to kill us slowly and keep us dumb. Things have gone to **** since WE GOT MAIL from AOL. One of the first images we saw was **** with a horse. The world as I knew it Jumped The Shark that day. This evil has been getting bigger and better for a long time. And with the internet, they got faster. I pray to God that our Saviors and Military and Allies have this under control and that We truly are safe. God Bless us all 🙏

• 
  Daniil (@DaniilBuilds) reported 12 minutes ago

  AOL and Time Warner didn’t just pay for what the two companies were worth in January 2000. They paid for what they believed the two companies could become together. The announced merger was valued at roughly $350B, with AOL shareholders expected to own about 55% of the combined company. The logic was easy to understand: combine AOL’s internet business with Time Warner’s media assets and create value neither could generate alone. But there was a financial problem hiding inside that logic. Future synergies are uncertain. The merger closed in January 2001. SEC disclosures later put the acquisition cost at approximately $147B. Then came the accounting reckoning. In 2002, the combined company reported a $98.7B net loss, including a $54.2B goodwill impairment. That $54.2B was non-cash. It did not mean the company suddenly paid out $54.2B in cash. It meant the value previously assigned to acquired goodwill could no longer be supported at the same level. That distinction matters. When you pay upfront for future synergies, you are effectively putting a price on value that still depends on execution. If the synergies arrive, the premium can make sense. If they don’t, shareholders can end up carrying the cost. The most expensive synergy is the one you pay for before you prove it exists.

• 
  Valon (@_Valon) reported 17 minutes ago

  Being on AIM, Yahoo Chat Room, and AOL chatroom was OUTRAGEOUS. 24 hour type ****

• 
  Jack_of_Trades (@diamond_r_cap) reported 17 minutes ago

  @nmlinguaphile mapquest! The Hammacher Schlemmer of online maps and connectivity! Are they still accepting 1,000 hours free dial up cdrom from AOL? If I were in corporate meeting: Should we do this? Me: Nobody gives a ****. Do what you want. Let's ignore them so they can die in peace.

• 
  Jesse (@jesse_altman) reported 17 minutes ago

  If you ever find yourself scrolling X and feeling like there’s too much happening and you’re falling behind on __________ thing, zoom out and realize by even being here and a part of the conversation you’re already light years ahead of 99% of the population w/ respect to the AI renaissance we’re currently living through. We’re still so early. It’s like the days when AOL used to mail you a CD ROM to onboard you onto dial up internet - we’re there. Spending the weekend with old friends in Austin, none of whom are in tech/SaaS or marketing. They’re doctors, actors/producers, teachers, civil engineers, carpenters, etc…and most of what we talk about on this app is totally alien to them. Which is totally fine. I’m hanging with the $20/mo Claude plan crowd. Their X feed is completely different. While I get a crazy amount of knowledge from this site it comes with decent bit of anxiety as well. There’s a shitload of noise to find the actual signal. That’s the apparent trade off — a sense of impending doom and feeling like if I don’t immediately test this platform/load this skill/build this workflow/try this model, etc…in exchange for what a never ending stream of knowledge from some genuinely brilliant people.

• 
  🕸 (@Danstonie) reported 23 minutes ago

  @ShivenChabria Its why i know anyone who makes fun of post grunge acts like puddle of mudd or godsmack never saw their early unplugged stuff. People will say the about a girl cover, but the puddle of mudd aol unplugged session they did in 2003 was insanely good, and godsmack sounds better live

• 
  SHAKSINGH (@shaksingh) reported 24 minutes ago

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

• 
  Reason Ate Opinions (@Scott076973722) reported 25 minutes ago

  @theamelia___ 19, I never bothered with AOL except to use the free discs as coasters.

• 
  Paul Walsh (@Paul__Walsh) reported 26 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.