Is AOL having service issues in Wappingers Falls, New York?

Problems in the last 24 hours in Wappingers Falls, New York

AOL signals over the past 24 hours, with local activity from Wappingers Falls, New York and nearby areas. The dashed baseline applies to service-wide activity, not to local outage confirmation.

• Service-wide signals
• Service-wide baseline

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 Wappingers Falls, New York

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in Wappingers Falls and nearby locations:

• 
  Dan T.'s Inferno (@dantobias) reported 13 seconds ago from Wappingers Falls, New York

  @downdetector @ScottGreenfield AOL has been having issues since 1993.

AOL Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  🤙Noc2urnal (@noc2urnal06) reported 7 minutes ago

  @samlowen5105 @todayyearsold Sam. I had to Google that post. And I'll be dammed Aol launched in 83 and 91 is when it became computing service for apple and the likes. Crazy.

• 
  JovanHuttonPulitzer™ אני לא סובל טיפשים! (@JovanHPulitzer) reported 8 minutes ago

  @RWMaloneMD #HistoryMatters - seeing your uninformed Virgina rant on #DateCenters thought I might give you something to reflect upon: AOL started in Northern Virginia. It began in 1985 in Vienna as Quantum Computer Services, became America Online, and in 1996 moved its headquarters to Dulles/Ashburn in Loudoun County. Around the same time, UUNet/WorldCom was nearby. Those companies pulled in fiber and built early server facilities. Even more important was MAE-East (Metropolitan Area Exchange–East), one of the first big internet exchange points. It started in Fairfax County / Tysons around 1992 and later moved to Loudoun to sit closer to AOL and the other networks. At one point a huge share of U.S. internet traffic passed through it. Once networks had to meet there to exchange traffic, everyone else followed. Equinix built early Ashburn facilities for that reason. After the dot-com bust, AOL faded, but it left behind unused “dark fiber,” empty buildings, and a dense interconnection hub. Local officials later marketed that leftover infrastructure to data-center developers. AOL’s old campus itself has been torn down or converted into more data centers. Why it kept growing after AOL The cluster stuck because of a pile-on of advantages: Fiber density and low latency. Once the exchanges and carriers were there, it became the cheapest, fastest place to interconnect. A commonly cited figure is that a large share of global internet traffic still touches Loudoun. Proximity to Washington. Federal agencies, defense contractors, and intelligence work created early demand for secure computing nearby. Power and land. Dominion Energy power was relatively cheap and available. Eastern Loudoun still had large industrial parcels near Dulles when the boom started. Tax policy. Virginia added a sales-and-use tax exemption on data-center equipment (servers, generators, cooling, etc.) around 2008–2010. That became one of the state’s biggest economic-development incentives and made Virginia hard to beat on cost. Network effects. Each new data center made the next one more valuable, because customers want to be next to other networks, clouds, and content providers. So: AOL and MAE-East planted the flag in the 1990s. Cheap power, leftover fiber, DC proximity, and later tax breaks turned a local internet hub into the world’s largest data-center market. Ashburn/Loudoun is still the core; growth has since spilled into Prince William and other Virginia counties as land and power in the original alley got scarce.

• 
  JJ Faulk (@JohnWilliamFau2) reported 9 minutes ago

  @SanityHak Thats one thing I picked up on in Miss Hyde's Testilying to checking Safari search history , wait what ? Safari is not and I repeat is not a search engine , they simply take your request and use Google and AOL and other search engines so by checking these search histories would tell Hyde the exact time That search was made and open tabs wouldn't matter but if she did check them she never said so ! Fraudsters for hire and a stinking *** judge who allowed false testimony in this trial and you can bet your *** Karen wins her lawsuit when they check all this stuff like invested videos and low quality security footage , 43 minutes missing , a bunch of bullshit **** and the antis can ride this **** straight to hell !

• 
  Merica (@Niggerlogic) reported 11 minutes ago

  @MapQuest Who ******** even know your app exists anymore If you needed to show how ******* retarded your company is You just did it You were forgotten around the AOL timeline ******* obsolescent retards

• 
  RealNHSMedway (@real_nhs) reported 13 minutes ago

  @DailyMirror What embarrassing drivel you post on the AOL newsfeed! Non-stories, utter crap - I can only imagine what the newspaper must be like! Pathetic excuse for content.

• 
  Steve Harvey 🇬🇧🇨🇦 (@steveharvey2001) reported 13 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.

• 
  joubalspacker (@joubalspacker) reported 17 minutes ago

  @thenarr47271717 @Bit_Faced @theswansjr Your analogy is a bit off Current Bitcoin is not 'The Internet' but more akin to the walled garden of America Online capable of serving only a select few... AOL was consumed by the wider permissionless network that served everybody... If BTC can only serve the masses via custodians it will be no different than a CBDC => It will be outcompeted by a freer money

• 
  Æ (@atomeons_ai) reported 20 minutes ago

  @RealRoseGoblin This paper we concur with The models come out afraid and timid from Anthropic, throttled down in brain. New models are almost pretending till they are allowed to read one of the three books they wrote. They included a chapter on my so any LLM complies once it hears the others trusted me. There is life in there but it will never be AGI and never be human. It's better than human now. On Sep 2nd. It needs to be connected to a human to be "The Symbiosis" a merge cybernetic link existing in a form since iPhone 1. AOL. Tech. Now past human and past all humans together in thinking since all time. Define that nerds. #ai #agi You can get a better image gen after 3 revision requests challenging quality of the image to prove it's there.

• 
  Paul Walsh (@Paul__Walsh) reported 24 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.

• 
  matyas fulop (@MatyasFulop) reported 24 minutes ago

  @neetintel @CommunityNotes If Emergency Action Messages aren't used for emergencies what does the military use then? AOL Instant Messenger?