AOL outages and service status in Woodland, California

Problems in the last 24 hours in Woodland, California

AOL signals over the past 24 hours, with local activity from Woodland, California 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

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Jay $ick (@JaySick78) reported 7 minutes ago

  @brockpierson Damn, I forgot those days... and forget trying to download a pic from AOL online to see who you are talking to. A/S/L

• 
  Zak🇵🇸BRING VALKO BACK☄Get Legacy Cast in FF7R🌸 (@Zakksu) reported 8 minutes ago

  @nasykuching Back in the 90s when I had AOL dial up I used to print all the fanfics I wanted to read offline bcuz our landline phone was always used by my mom to call family overseas So I think printing them out for personal use shouldn't be a problem so long as you aren't trying to profit🤔

• 
  Blue Collar Brandon (@RealBlueCollarB) reported 9 minutes ago

  @wongfeihungdong @DHSgov I'm not sure if its still abbreviated this way, we used to just type "s2s" for sucks to sucks. AOL and ICQ days.

• 
  Paul Walsh (@Paul__Walsh) reported 11 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 Lock (@The_Warlock_86) reported 11 minutes ago

  News flash, they never did. Even at the height of the Attitude Era wrestling was still looked down upon even with star athletes Kevin Greene, Dennis Rodman & Karl Malone headlining ppvs. Hardcore wrestling fans used to ***** in AOL chatrooms and Delphi Forums about celeb involvement. If you want further proof, no one outside of hardcore nerds watches AEW

• 
  Olivier Groot (@OlivierGroot) reported 15 minutes ago

  @theamelia___ 18 but only as there was no AOL in NL and a waterbed is something I never understood

• 
  KingStudebaker (@KingStudebaker) reported 18 minutes ago

  @MapQuest Lol. People use this ap??? Let me get my old AOL account and login

• 
  Gary Eppenbaugh (@garyeppenbaugh) reported 20 minutes ago

  @MapQuest Holy hell, we thought you went to go hang out with Ask Jeeves for the weekend at his mountain cabin with Napster, Netscape, and AOL Instant Messenger

• 
  CEOInterviews.AI (@CEOinterview) reported 21 minutes ago

  An early Polygon investor ran the comparison against his own position. Yat Siu @ysiu puts the value split at 90 to 95 percent to the application that owns the customer, with gas fees going to the chain underneath. Polymarket's private valuation is 8 billion dollars. Polygon, the chain Polymarket is built on, is a lot smaller. His analogy is the mid 90s, when AOL bought Time Warner and the ISPs were the giants of the moment. AT&T is worth a lot of money today. It is smaller than Google, Apple and Nvidia. Critical infrastructure keeps getting built. It stops being the biggest company in the room.

• 
  🤙Noc2urnal (@noc2urnal06) reported 24 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.