Freedom on the Net Research Methodology

What We Measure

The project rates the real-world rights and freedoms enjoyed by individuals within each country. While internet freedom may be primarily affected by state behavior, actions by nonstate actors, including technology companies, are also considered. The index ratings generally reflect the interplay of a variety of actors, both governmental and nongovernmental. Over the years, Freedom on the Net has been continuously adapted to capture technological advances, shifting tactics of repression, and emerging threats to internet freedom.

The Research and Scoring Process

The methodology includes 21 questions and nearly 100 subquestions, divided into three categories:

A. Obstacles to Access details infrastructural, economic, and political barriers to access; government decisions to shut off connectivity or block specific applications or technologies; legal, regulatory, and ownership control over internet service providers; and the independence of regulatory bodies.

B. Limits on Content analyzes legal regulations on content; technical filtering and blocking of websites; other forms of censorship and self-censorship; the vibrancy and diversity of online information space; and the use of digital tools for civic mobilization.

C. Violations of User Rights tackles legal protections and restrictions on free expression; surveillance and privacy; and legal and extralegal repercussions for online speech and activities, such as imprisonment, cyberattacks, or extralegal harassment and physical violence.

Each question is scored on a varying range of points. The subquestions guide researchers regarding factors they should consider while evaluating and assigning points, though not all will be relevant to every country. Under each question, a higher number of points is allotted for a freer situation, while a lower number of points is allotted for a less free environment. Points add up to produce a score for each of the categories, and a country’s total points for all three categories represent its final score (0–100). Based on the score, Freedom House assigns the following internet freedom statuses: 

• Scores 100-70 = Free
• Scores 69-40 = Partly Free
• Scores 39-0 = Not Free

Freedom House adopted a modified report production process for Freedom on the Net 2026. Staff members conducted robust research to analyze developments in the 38 countries covered by the report. Staff also reviewed each country’s scores based on established coding guidelines, through careful consideration of events, laws, and practices relevant to each indicator, and consulted independent experts to assess the comparative reliability and integrity of the scores for a majority of countries. Following the scoring process, Freedom House staff produced summaries of key developments in each country and again consulted with independent experts on the summaries for a subset of countries. Staff members conducted additional qualitative analysis on every country to identify the year’s most important global findings and emerging trends.

In previous editions, Freedom House staff invited at least one researcher or organization to serve as the author for a full narrative report on each country, training them to assess internet freedom developments according to the project’s comprehensive research methodology. These authors submitted draft scores and country reports and attended a ratings review meeting focused on their region. During the meetings, participants reviewed, critiqued, and adjusted the draft scores based on the established coding guidelines. After completing the regional and country consultations, Freedom House staff edited all country reports and performed a final review of all scores to ensure their comparative reliability and integrity. 

Freedom on the Net scores were inverted in the 2019 edition to align with the scoring system for Freedom in the World, Freedom House’s flagship report on political rights and civil liberties. 

Checklist of Questions

A. Obstacles to Access (0–25 points)

1. Do infrastructural limitations restrict access to the internet or the speed and quality of internet connections? (0–6 points)
   • Do individuals have access to high-speed internet services on fixed-broadband and mobile connections?
   • Does poor infrastructure (including unreliable electricity) or severe damage to infrastructure (caused by events such as natural disasters or armed conflicts) limit residents’ ability to access the internet?
2. Is access to the internet prohibitively expensive or beyond the reach of certain segments of the population for geographical, social, or other reasons? (0–3 points)
   • Do financial constraints—such as high prices for internet services, excessive taxes imposed on such services, or state manipulation of the relevant markets—make internet access prohibitively expensive for large segments of the population?
   • Are there significant differences in internet penetration and access based on geographical area, or for certain ethnic, religious, gender, LGBT+, migrant, and other relevant groups?
3. Does the government exercise technical or legal control over internet infrastructure for the purposes of restricting connectivity? (0–6 points)
   • Does the government (or the de facto government in a given area) restrict, or compel service providers, including low Earth orbit satellite internet providers, to restrict internet connectivity by slowing or shutting down internet connections during specific events (such as protests or elections), either locally or nationally?
   • Does the government centralize internet infrastructure in a manner that could facilitate restrictions on connectivity?
   • Does the government block, or compel service providers to block, widely used social media platforms and communication apps?
   • Does the government block, or compel service providers to block, certain protocols, ports, and functionalities within such platforms and apps (for example, Voice over Internet Protocol [VoIP], video streaming, multimedia messaging, or Secure Sockets Layer [SSL]), either permanently or during specific events?
   • Do restrictions on connectivity disproportionately affect marginalized communities, such as inhabitants of certain regions or those belonging to different ethnic, religious, gender, LGBT+, migrant, diaspora, and other relevant groups?
4. Are there legal, regulatory, or economic obstacles that restrict the diversity of service providers? (0–6 points)
   • Is there a legal or de facto monopoly on the provision of fixed-line, mobile, and public internet access?
   • Does the state place burdensome legal, regulatory, or economic requirements on the establishment or operation of service providers, including low Earth orbit satellite internet providers?
5. Do national regulatory bodies that oversee service providers, digital platforms, and the internet more broadly fail to operate in a free, fair, and independent manner? (0–4 points)
   • Are there explicit legal guarantees that protect the independence and autonomy of regulatory bodies overseeing the internet (exclusively or as part of a broader mandate) from political or commercial interference?
   • Is the process for appointing members of regulatory bodies transparent and representative of different stakeholders’ legitimate interests?
   • Are decisions taken by regulatory bodies relating to the internet fair, apolitical, and independent from political pressure, and designed to take meaningful notice of comments from stakeholders in society?

B. Limits on Content (0–35 points)

1. Does the state block or filter, or compel service providers to block or filter, internet content, particularly material that is protected by international human rights standards? (0–6 points) 
   • Does the state use, or compel service providers to use, technical means to block or filter websites and online content featuring political, social, cultural, religious, or artistic expression?
   • Does the state use, or compel service providers to use, technical means to block or filter access to websites that may be socially or legally problematic (such as those related to gambling, pornography, copyright violations, or illegal drugs) in a manner that inflicts collateral damage on content and activities that are protected under international human rights standards? 
   • Does the state block or order the blocking of entire social media platforms, communication apps, and other web domains for the purpose of censoring the content that appears on them?
   • Is there blocking of tools that enable individuals to bypass censorship, such as virtual private networks (VPNs)?
   • Does the state procure, or compel services providers to procure, censorship-enabling technology, including that which uses artificial intelligence (AI) tools, to automate censorship or increase its scope? 
2. Do state or nonstate actors employ legal, administrative, or other means to force publishers, digital platforms, content hosts, or other intermediaries to delete content, particularly material that is protected by international human rights standards? (0–4 points) 
   • Are administrative, judicial, or extralegal measures used to order the deletion of content from the internet, particularly political, social, cultural, religious, and artistic expression, either prior to or after its publication?
   • Do publishers, digital platforms, or content hosts (including intermediaries such as app stores and content delivery networks) arbitrarily remove such content due to informal or formal pressure from government officials or other powerful political actors? 
   • Do publishers, digital platforms, content hosts, and other intermediaries face excessive or improper legal responsibility for opinions expressed by third parties transmitted via the technology they supply (in other words, intermediary liability), incentivizing them to remove such content?
3. Do restrictions on the internet and digital content lack transparency, proportionality to the stated aims, or an independent appeals process? (0–4 points) 
   • Are there national laws, independent oversight bodies, and other democratically accountable procedures in place to ensure that decisions to restrict access to certain content abide by international human rights standards and are proportional to their stated aim? 
   • Do specific laws or binding legal decisions require publishers, digital platforms, internet service providers (ISPs), generative AI systems, and other intermediaries to restrict access to online material, particularly that which is protected under international human rights standards?
   • Are entities that restrict content—including state authorities, ISPs, content hosts, digital platforms, and other intermediaries—transparent about what content is blocked, deleted, or otherwise limited, including to the public and directly to the impacted user?
   • Do individuals whose content is subjected to censorship have access to efficient and timely avenues of appeal with the actor responsible for restricting that content, or with independent oversight bodies, including mechanisms set up by the state or industry?
4. Do journalists, commentators, and ordinary people practice self-censorship online? (0–4 points) 
   • Do internet users in the country engage in self-censorship on important political, social, or religious issues, including on public forums and in private communications?
   • Does fear of retribution, censorship, state surveillance, or data collection practices have a chilling effect on online speech or cause individuals to avoid certain online activities of a civic nature?
   • Where widespread self-censorship online exists, do some journalists, commentators, or other individuals continue to test the boundaries, despite the potential repercussions?
5. Are online sources of information controlled or manipulated by the government or other powerful actors to advance a favored interest? (0–4 points) 
   • Do political leaders, government agencies, political parties, or other powerful actors directly manipulate information or disseminate false or misleading information via state-owned news outlets, official social media accounts/groups, or other formal channels?
   • Do government officials or other actors surreptitiously employ or encourage individuals, companies, generative AI tools, or other automated systems to generate or artificially amplify favored narratives or smear campaigns on social media?
   • Do government officials or other powerful actors pressure or coerce online news outlets, journalists, or other online commentators to follow a particular editorial direction in their reporting and commentary?
   • Do authorities issue official guidelines or directives on coverage to online media outlets, including instructions to downplay or amplify certain comments or topics?
   • Do government officials or other actors bribe or use close economic ties with online journalists, commentators, or website owners in order to influence the content they produce or host?
   • Do campaigns coordinated by foreign or domestic actors to spread false or misleading information for political purposes have a significant impact on public debate?
6. Are there economic, regulatory, or other constraints that negatively affect individuals’ ability to publish content online? (0–3 points) 
   • Are favorable informal connections with government officials or other powerful actors necessary for online media outlets, content hosts, or digital platforms (like search engines, email applications, or blog-hosting platforms) to be economically viable?
   • Does the state limit the ability of online media or other content hosts to accept advertising or investment, particularly from foreign sources, or does it discourage advertisers from conducting business with disfavored online media or other content hosts?
   • Do onerous taxes, regulations, or licensing fees present an obstacle to participation in, establishment of, or management of digital platforms, news outlets, blogs, or social media groups/channels?
7. Does the online information landscape lack diversity and reliability? (0–4 points) 
   • Are people able to access a range of local, regional, and international news sources that convey independent, balanced views in the main languages spoken in the country?
   • Do online media outlets, social media pages, and websites represent diverse interests and languages within society, for example by providing content produced by different ethnic, religious, gender, LGBT+, migrant, diaspora, and other relevant groups?
   • Does a lack of competition among digital platforms, content hosts, and other intermediaries undermine the diversity of information to which people have access?
   • Does false or misleading content online, including content produced by generative AI tools, significantly contribute to offline harms, such as harassment, property destruction, physical violence, or death?
8. Do conditions impede individuals’ ability to form communities, mobilize, and campaign online, particularly on political and social issues? (0–6 points) 
   • Can people freely participate in civic life online and join online communities based around their political, social, or cultural identities without fear of retribution or harm?
   • Do civil society organizations, activists, and communities organize online on political, social, cultural, and economic issues, including during electoral campaigns and nonviolent protests, and without fear of retribution or harm?
   • Do people use generative AI tools to engage in online mobilization?
   • Do state or other actors limit access to online tools and websites (like social media platforms, messaging groups, petition websites, or generative AI tools) for the purpose of restricting free assembly and association online?
   • Does the state use legal or other means (such as criminal provisions, detentions, or surveillance) to restrict free assembly and association online?
   • Does the state use facial or other biometric technologies to identify and apprehend people attending protests that were organized online?

C. Violations of User Rights (0–40 points)

1. Do the constitution or other laws fail to protect rights such as freedom of expression, access to information, and press freedom, including on the internet, and are they enforced by a judiciary that lacks independence? (0–6 points)  
   • Does the constitution contain language that provides for freedom of expression, access to information, and press freedom generally?
   • Are there laws or binding legal decisions that specifically protect online modes of expression, access to information, and press freedom?
   • Do executive, legislative, and other governmental authorities comply with these legal decisions, and are these decisions effectively enforced?
   • Is the judiciary independent, and do senior judicial bodies and officials support free expression, access to information, and press freedom online?
2. Are there laws that assign criminal penalties or civil liability for online activities, particularly those that are protected under international human rights standards? (0–4 points) 
   • Do specific laws—including penal codes and those related to the media, defamation, cybercrime, cybersecurity, and terrorism—criminalize online expression and activities that are protected under international human rights standards (like journalism, discussion of human rights, educational materials, or political, social, cultural, religious, and artistic expression)?
   • Are restrictions on online activities defined by law, narrowly circumscribed, and both necessary and proportionate to address a legitimate aim?
3. Are individuals penalized for online activities, particularly those that are protected under international human rights standards? (0–6 points) 
   • Are writers, commentators, journalists, bloggers, or social media users subject to civil liability, imprisonment, arbitrary detention, police raids, the stripping of citizenship, or other legal sanction for publishing, sharing, or accessing material on the internet in contravention of international human rights standards?
   • Are penalties for defamation; spreading false information or “fake news”; offenses related to cybersecurity, national security, terrorism, and extremism; blasphemy; insulting state institutions and officials; or harming foreign relations applied unnecessarily and disproportionately?
4. Does the government place restrictions on anonymous online communication or encryption? (0–4 points) 
   • Are website owners, bloggers, or users in general required to register with the government?
   • Does the government require that individuals use their real names or register with the authorities when purchasing electronic devices, such as mobile phones?
   • Do specific laws or binding legal decisions require digital platforms or other intermediaries to identify or verify users’ real names, including by requiring them to provide a government-issued identity document?
   • Are individuals prohibited from using encryption services, circumvention tools, or other tools to protect their communications or to facilitate private web browsing?
   • Do specific laws or binding legal decisions undermine strong encryption protocols, such as mandates for client-side scanning, traceability, or real-time monitoring?
5. Does state surveillance of internet activities infringe on individuals’ right to privacy? (0–6 points) 
   • Do the constitution, specific laws, or binding legal decisions protect against government intrusion into private lives?
   • Do state actors comply with these laws or legal decisions, and are they held accountable, including by an independent judiciary or other forms of public oversight, when they do not?
   • Do state authorities engage in the blanket collection of communications metadata and/or content transmitted within the country?
   • Are there legal guidelines and independent oversight on the collection, retention, and inspection of surveillance data by state security and law enforcement agencies, and if so, do those guidelines adhere to international human rights standards regarding transparency, necessity, and proportionality?
   • Do state authorities monitor publicly available information posted online (including on websites, blogs, social media, and other digital platforms), particularly for the purpose of deterring activities protected under international human rights standards such as independent journalism, community building and organizing, and political, social, cultural, religious, and artistic expression?
   • Do authorities have the technical capacity to regularly monitor or intercept the content of private communications such as email and other private messages, including through spyware and extraction technology?
   • Do state actors use AI tools for the purposes of online surveillance, without appropriate oversight?
   • Do state actors manually search people’s electronic devices, including while they are in detention, for the purposes of ascertaining their online activities or accessing their personal data without appropriate oversight?
   • Do government surveillance measures target or disproportionately affect dissidents, human rights defenders, journalists, or certain ethnic, religious, gender, LGBT+, migrant, diaspora, and other relevant groups?
6. Does monitoring and collection of user data by service providers and other technology companies infringe on individuals’ right to privacy? (0–6 points) 
   • Do specific laws or binding legal decisions enshrine the rights of individuals over personal data?  
   • Do regulatory bodies, such as a data protection agency, effectively protect people’s privacy, including through investigating companies’ mismanagement of data and enforcing relevant laws or legal decisions?
   • Can the government obtain user information from companies (such as service providers, low Earth orbit satellite internet providers, digital platforms, email providers, device manufacturers, and data brokers) without a legal process? Do the country’s laws require these companies to collect and retain user data beyond the scope of ordinary business purposes?
   • Are these companies required to store users’ data on servers located in the country (that is, are there “data localization” requirements)?
   • Do these companies monitor individuals and supply information about their digital activities to the government or other powerful actors?
   • Does the state attempt to impose similar requirements on these companies through less formal methods, such as threats of censorship and legal liability for company employees?
   • Are government requests for user data from these companies transparent, and do companies have a realistic avenue for appeal, for example via independent courts?
7. Are individuals subject to extralegal intimidation or physical violence by state authorities or any other actor in relation to their online activities? (0–5 points) 
   • Are individuals subject to physical violence in relation to their online activities?
   • Are individuals subject to other intimidation and harassment—such as verbal threats, travel restrictions, nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, doxing, or property destruction or confiscation—in relation to their online activities?
   • Are individuals subject to online intimidation and harassment specifically because they belong to a certain ethnic, religious, gender, LGBT+, migrant, diaspora, or other relevant group?
   • Have the online activities of dissidents, journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders, or other individuals based outside the country led to repercussions for their family members or associates based in the country (in other words, coercion-by-proxy)?
   • Have foreign nationals in the country been arrested and extradited to their home country in retaliation for their online activity, particularly material that is protected by international human rights standards?
8. Are websites, governmental and private entities, service providers, or individuals subject to widespread hacking and other forms of cyberattack? (0–3 points) 
   • Have websites belonging to opposition or civil society groups or to news outlets in the country been temporarily or permanently disabled due to cyberattacks (such as distributed denial-of-service [DDoS] attacks), particularly at politically sensitive times? 
   • Are websites, news outlets, blogs, or social media accounts subject to targeted technical attacks as retribution for posting certain content, for example on political and social topics?
   • Are governmental entities subject to significant and targeted cyberattacks meant to steal data or disable normal operations, including attacks that originate outside the country?

Yearly Editions' Methodologies

 

• Freedom on the Net 2024 — Download PDF
• Freedom on the Net 2023 — Download PDF
• Freedom on the Net 2022 — Download PDF
• Freedom on the Net 2021 — Download PDF
• Freedom on the Net 2020 — Download PDF
• Freedom on the Net 2019 — Download PDF
• Freedom on the Net 2018 — Download PDF
• Freedom on the Net 2017 — Download PDF
• Freedom on the Net 2016 — Download PDF
• Freedom on the Net 2015 — Download PDF
• Freedom on the Net 2014 — Download PDF

.