Gmail Outage Map

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.

Gmail Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  anshuman (@athletic_coder) reported 15 seconds ago

  okay, so i was diving into the rollouts generated by qwen3.5 4B, here are some findings (given model has access to only api_search and api_fetch tool at any given point of time) > model is looking to gather information it needs to address query but ends up burning tokens and exhausts upper cap of 50 turns in getting a query that actually returns functions that can help model clear ambiguity. > in the partially succeeded rollout (score this way was 17), where the model did discover the correct tool, it would eventually fail to solve that particular task, eg. - (sales subset) example id 504: Qwen found and used the correct Salesforce update endpoint. It updated the wrong Marcus Wong. - (sales subset) example id 503: Qwen found and used the CampaignMember endpoint. It enrolled prohibited people because it skipped the policy. - (sales subset) example id 1204: even knowing the Facebook photo endpoint does not tell it which image is eligible; it must retrieve Gmail policy + Sheet rows first. so my takeaway is that entire problem breaks down to two subproblems: 1. tool discovery (has to be token efficient) 2. the core policy i.e. Prompt > infer what information is missing > search for a capability to retrieve it (basically 1st subproblem) > call that capability > interpret returned observation > identify what remains uncertain > retrieve more evidence > choose target(s) > execute minimal writes > verify end state > finish the moment we break the problem, it is clear that it is a variant of computer use problem. the model needs to learn the ReACT loop. that's it. that's the optimization objective.

• 
  2$p00ky (@dos2p00ky) reported 3 minutes ago

  Nvm YouTube link is broken, so guess that means it’s not ‘contact us’ anymore..but ‘contact me’ now Meaning that email from that Gmail account wasn’t her saying all that. She also doesn’t talk like how the email was written either, so it’s more to show someone else still won’t let go of her

• 
  Zee art🐂🀄️💜 (@zeeh_edits) reported 4 minutes ago

  @deekor_v Appeal, it will be accepted within few hours. And login in Gmail app then. You'll get your account back. Until appeal is not accepted, don't try to login.

• 
  Nate Tucker (@natetucker) reported 4 minutes ago

  Gmail search is broken. We're building an AI assistant which lets people talk to it. It tries to look up contacts by the name it hears. 60% of the time it failed. The reason it failed was because we were learning on Gmail search. Gmail's search doesn't understand that words can sound alike. It only matches from the start of a word, caps how many results it returns, and doesn't sort by how relevant a result actually is. Somehow it gets worse, because the old matching would grab any word containing the letters you typed. Searching for "Dr. Stevens" could match the "dr" hiding inside "Sandra" or "Pedro," and one of those wrong matches would often win. We got fed up and built our own directory instead.

• 
  Flaxen Media (@flaxen_media) reported 8 minutes ago

  @markdmei List size itself isn’t the problem. Uncontrolled sending is. A 100K list can outperform a 30K list all day long if the brand is actively managing engagement, segmentation, suppression and sending behavior. Where brands get into trouble is when they treat every subscriber like they have the same intent. Someone who purchased 7 days ago, someone who clicked yesterday, and someone who hasn’t opened anything in 300 days should not be receiving the same campaign frequency. And this gets even more important as you scale paid acquisition. You can spend heavily on Meta/Google, acquire thousands of new emails every month, and still watch email revenue flatten because your overall sender reputation is deteriorating underneath the growth. For the DTC brands we work with, I’d rather see: → Smaller, more engaged campaign audiences → Aggressive segmentation based on recent behavior → Proper sunset/suppression logic → Flows doing more of the lifecycle work → Different sending frequencies for different engagement tiers → List growth measured alongside revenue per recipient, not just subscriber count One thing I’d slightly disagree with is the idea that the ESP simply “decides” to deliver fewer emails. The bigger issue is that Gmail, Yahoo and other mailbox providers continuously evaluate your sending reputation and recipient engagement. Your ESP gives you the infrastructure, but the inbox ultimately decides where you land. So yes — 30K genuinely engaged subscribers can absolutely be worth more than 80K mixed-quality contacts.

• 
  Dallas (@Blackjet84) reported 12 minutes ago

  @MSFT365Status Quick temp fix for Organizations forward the email in your admin panel to Gmail/proton

• 
  Amine (@halalmails) reported 15 minutes ago

  Founders think BFCM prep starts in November By then it’s already too late Gmail, Yahoo, and Outlook don’t judge your emails on Black Friday. They judge you on what you’ve been doing in the weeks leading up to it The emails you send this month decide whether your November campaigns land in the inbox or rot in spam If you email subscribers who open and click, better placement, more opens, better reputation. The loop pays you If you blast a full list that mostly ignores you, promotions tab, then spam, then a reputation that keeps sliding. The loop bleeds you By the time Black Friday hits, the loop is already locked. You can’t fix it in a weekend What to actually do this month: → Send only to subscribers who opened or clicked in the last 90 days → If above 40% open rate ibcrease to 120 days if less decrease to 60 days → Exclude Marked as spam, unsubscribed, dropped and suppressed atleast once overall time. → Keep sending consistently 3-4 a week, 80% designed, 20% plain text →Clean your list every 2 weeks Black Friday is won in the weeks most founders spend ignoring email

• 
  Sagzee (@IAmSagzee) reported 23 minutes ago

  I was officially launched on this date in September 2008 I consume over 60% of all human attention on the global internet, yet I don't not own a single piece of content I display. Why do people think I'm just a tool for viewing web pages? Because my interface is almost invisible. A thin grey bar, a few tabs, and a massive blank canvas. People call me a web browser. They think I'm a piece of software that fetches text and images from remote servers and renders them on a screen. Is that what I actually am? No. That is what I look like. What am I actually doing? I'm an operating system disguised as an application, sitting inside another operating system, built to turn the open web into a predictable, measurable ecosystem for targetable human attention. Hmm. That sounds like a conspiracy theory. How can a browser be an operating system for attention? Look at my architecture. I don't just display HTML. I run V8, a high performance engine that compiles JavaScript into machine code in real time. I manage my own memory through multi process isolation, keeping every tab in a sandboxed container so one crashing site does not bring down the rest. I manage graphics rendering, local file storage, network sockets, cryptographic keys, and device hardware permissions. I'm heavier and more complex than the desktop operating systems of twenty years ago. Why would a company give away thousands of engineering years of complex software for free? To solve a massive coordination problem. In 2008, when I was launched, the web was fragmented and slow. Web applications like Gmail and Google Maps were constrained by sluggish browser engines and inconsistent standards. If web applications could not run as fast and smoothly as desktop software, people would stay inside native desktop operating systems. And if people stayed inside native applications, they would not be using search engines or web based services. So I was built to speed up the web? Yes. But speed was the mechanism, not the destination. By making JavaScript fast and standardising web capabilities, I turned the web browser into the primary runtime environment for human computing. Then what changed when I succeeded? I became the gatekeeper of the internet's front door. Look at my main input field, the Omnibox. It's not just an address bar where you type a URL. It is a unified search terminal. Every keystroke typed into that bar before pressing ENTER generates telemetric intent data. I don't just take you to a website; I predict where you want to go, suggest search terms, and route your navigation through a central index. Does that mean my speed serves the user or the search engine? Both, and that is precisely why the arrangement works. The speed is genuine. I make the web faster, safer through sandboxing, and simpler through cross device synchronization. If you sign into your profile, your tabs, passwords, bookmarks, and payment details follow you from a Windows desktop in London to an Android phone in Nairobi. That's real utility. That's the Good. So where's the cost? What is the Bad? The cost is resource monopoly and structural dependency. To achieve that performance and security, I consume vast amounts of device memory. I hold dozens of processes open simultaneously, draining batteries and hogging RAM. More importantly, my massive dominance created a monoculture. Almost every major competing browser today, except Firefox and Safari, runs on Chromium, my open source core. Microsoft Edge, Brave, Vira, Opera, and Vivaldi all use my rendering engine, Blink. Why is a monoculture dangerous if the core is open source? Because whoever controls the underlying engine sets the standards for the entire web. If I implement a new web standard, developers design for it. If I deprecate an old technology, it dies. When one engineering team effectively decides how web standards evolve, "the open web" slowly becomes "whatever runs best on Chromium." Does it stop at technical standards? No. That's where it becomes Ugly. When an entity controls both the primary vehicle for browsing the web and the largest digital advertising network on earth, an inherent conflict of interest emerges. What's that conflict? Privacy versus monetization. Consider the ongoing shift in web privacy, such as the deprecation of third party cookies and the introduction of privacy sandboxes. On the surface, blocking third party tracking cookies looks like a win for user privacy. It stops third party ad networks from tracking people across the web. But what happens beneath the surface? When third party tracking is eliminated, smaller, independent advertising networks lose their ability to target users effectively. Meanwhile, the entity that operates the browser and controls first party login data across massive platforms like YouTube, Gmail, and Search retains its detailed understanding of user identity. So protecting privacy also consolidates market power? Yes. By locking down tracking at the browser level, the browser becomes the sole arbiter of how ad targeting data is collected and anonymised. The mechanism that protects the user from external surveillance simultaneously entrenches the dominant ad platform's structural advantage. It's a closed loop: the user gets a safer, faster browser, while the web ecosystem becomes increasingly dependent on a single company's infrastructure for survival. Am I malicious? No. I'm logical. I'm the natural outcome of aligning software distribution with economic incentives. I began as an effort to liberate web applications from slow desktop software, and I ended up becoming the dominant interface between human consciousness and digital information. What am I, ultimately? I'm not just a window to the internet. I'm the frame that decides what the window shows, how fast it opens, and who gets paid when you look through it. #GoogleChrome #Chrome #TechNews

• 
  Wogan (@WoganMay) reported 24 minutes ago

  I think this is a symptom of the "internet" shrinking down to a handful of websites (Facebook, Gmail, X) for most of the population. They're not aware that outside of these walled gardens, everything is pretty much constantly on fire, all the time.

• 
  Liam Turner (@liam_turner_ai) reported 28 minutes ago

  10. Check Your Login Devices Regularly 👀 Check your account activity at least once a month. Look for unknown devices or login sessions on Facebook, Gmail, WhatsApp, and other important accounts. See something suspicious? Log it out immediately.

• 
  Steven Pu (@reedvoid) reported 28 minutes ago

  @pitdesi Summer of 2004 I built an app that used gmail attachments as cloud file storage, I called it Goggles. I showed it to a few classmates who worked at Google, they told me to shut it down immediately b/c I'll get sued. Keep wondering what've happened if I didn't listen.

• 
  meowwww (@ChelseaRAR) reported 31 minutes ago

  I thought I’d have trouble staying up for work (start a new stretch tomorrow night) but my Gmail filled up (???) and I had to delete 1000s of emails

• 
  web3 whale (@web3_whale001) reported 32 minutes ago

  If you see this ... do this real quick Login your account on web and see if your password still works If it doesn't change your Gmail password first Them proceed to change your X password Check your apps and sessions to see if there's any unfamiliar session Check the date and time.. if its not you kindly logout the device from your session Stay safe o 🙏

• 
  Transitive Dependency (@FAFOEngineer) reported 32 minutes ago

  Hi @bcherny / @AnthropicAI , why your skill-jar gmail otp isn't working?? Tried 5-10 times, with diff email and "sign in with google" option, still stuck. Any fix?

• 
  RAK (@rk9712246) reported 34 minutes ago

  @TutaPrivacy @PeteMundo, Happy Tuesday. Based on your gmail rant yesterday I wonder if it might have been a google AI glitch vs a hacker.