In 2025, Iceland was the worldwide leader in terms of internet freedom. The country ranked first with 94 index points in the Freedom House Index, where each country received a numerical score from 100 (the freest) to 0 (the least free). Estonia ranked second with 91 index points, followed by Chile, with a score of 87 index points. Internet restrictions worldwide The decline of internet freedom in 2022 is mainly linked to political conflicts in different parts of the world. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Russian government intensified its attempts to control the online content in the country. The government placed restrictions on three different U.S.-based social media platforms at the same time, X, formerly known as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. These restrictions made it to the top of the longest-lasting limitations on the web in 2022. Social protests rose in Iran following the death of Mahsa Amini in September 2022. The Iranian government decided to shut down the internet and various social media platforms in an attempt to minimize the communication between the protesters. In 2022, 11 new internet restrictions were recorded in Iran. However, residents in the Indian region of Jammu and Kashmir saw the highest number of new internet restrictions, which amounted to more than double the ones in Iran. The impact of internet shutdowns In 2022, the economic impact of internet restrictions worldwide reached an estimated 23.79 billion U.S. dollars. Meanwhile, the highest financial losses due to internet shutdowns were caused by limitations in Russia, and more than seven thousand hours of restricted various online services had an economic impact of 21.59 billion U.S. dollars. The restrictions impacted around 113 million people in the country. Myanmar placed the most extended restriction on internet services, lasting 17,520 hours in total. Similar restrictions in India affected over 120 million people. 

As of May 2024, Taiwan was ranked as having the highest degree of internet freedom among all countries and territories in the Asia-Pacific region, scoring 79 index points. In contrast, China and Myanmar were ranked the lowest, each scoring just 9 index points in terms of internet freedom for 2024.

According to the Freedom House Index, Canada and Chile ranked highest in the Americas for internet freedom in 2024, each scoring 86 out of 100. Costa Rica followed closely with 83 points, while Cuba ranked last with 20 points.

As of May 2023, India had 21 restrictions imposed against the freedom of speech on the internet. The country, thus, failed to follow the 2021 UN resolution about human rights on the internet, which it initially agreed on. The Indian government has since imposed 20 new internet restrictions in addition to one existing, becoming the country that has broken the agreement the most. Sudan has put nine regulations limiting internet use for its citizens. The resolution about the promotion, protection, and enjoyment of human rights on the internet was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) on July 13, 2021.

Myanmar today is among one of the most censored countries in the world. The country is ranked 17 out of 100 on internet freedom with a score of 9 out of 100 on the Global Freedom Index after the military coup. Apart from this finding between January 2022 to June, it found 112 out of 2,130 websites were detected 1,473 confirmed blocking counts through 6 local vantages under DNS level interference and HTTP level interference. The project is done via Open Observatory Network Interference (OONI) detection and reporting systems, involving the maintenance of test lists and measurements.

According to the Freedom House Index, Armenia and Georgia ranked as having the highest degree of internet freedom in Eurasia, each scoring 72 and 70 out of 100 in 2025. Comparatively, Russia scored 17 points out of a possible 100, highlighting a lower degree of internet freedom.

Myanmar today is among one of the most censored countries in the world. The country is ranked 17 out of 100 on internet freedom with a score of 9 out of 100 on the Global Freedom Index after the military coup. Apart from this finding between January 2022 to June, it found 112 out of 2,130 websites were detected 1,473 confirmed blocking counts through 6 local vantages under DNS level interference and HTTP level interference. The project is done via Open Observatory Network Interference (OONI) detection and reporting systems, involving the maintenance of test lists and measurements.

In 2024, Iceland was the worldwide leader in terms of internet freedom. The country ranked first with 94 index points in the Freedom House Index, where each country received a numerical score from 100 (the freest) to 0 (the least free). Estonia ranked second with a 92 index points, followed by Canada, with a score of 86 index points. Internet restrictions worldwide The decline of internet freedom in 2022 is mainly linked to political conflicts in different parts of the world. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Russian government intensified its attempts to control the online content in the country. The government placed restrictions on three different U.S.-based social media platforms at the same time, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. These restrictions made it to the top of the longest-lasting limitations on the web in 2022. Social protests rose in Iran following the death of Mahsa Amini in September 2022. The Iranian government decided to shut down the internet and various social media platforms in an attempt to minimize the communication between the protesters. In 2022, 11 new internet restrictions were recorded in Iran. However, residents in the Indian region of Jammu and Kashmir saw the highest number of new internet restrictions, which amounted to more than double than the ones in Iran. The impact of internet shutdowns In 2022, the economic impact of internet restrictions worldwide reached an estimated 23.79 billion U.S. dollars. Meanwhile, the highest financial losses due to internet shutdowns were caused by limitations in Russia, and more than seven thousand hours of restricted various online services had an economic impact of 21.59 billion U.S. dollars. The restrictions impacted around 113 million people in the country. Myanmar placed the most extended restriction on internet services, lasting 17,520 hours in total. Similar restrictions in India affected over 120 million people. 

As of October 2025, **** percent of the population in Burundi lacked internet access, placing the country second worldwide in terms of offline population share. North Korea ranked first, with an internet penetration rate close to ****, as access to the global internet remains largely restricted for its citizens. Global internet freedom and access The degree of internet freedom varies drastically across countries, with some providing open access and others imposing significant restrictions. In 2024, Iceland was leading worldwide in terms of internet freedom, while Myanmar and China ranked the lowest in the world, with strict government surveillance and censorship. The struggle with limited internet access is particularly evident in Africa, which had the lowest internet penetration rates as of 2024. Global privacy concerns The limitations and restrictions to internet access around the world prove that internet users' privacy is extremely vulnerable. And those who have access to the web are somewhat aware of that. By the third quarter of 2024, around **** percent of internet users expressed concerns about companies misusing their data. This growing awareness of privacy risks is reflected in users’ behaviour. By June 2024, ***** in ***internet users worldwide had already taken measures to protect their online privacy. Additionally, many internet users reported taking further steps, such as enabling multi-factor authentication, for stronger privacy protections.

Designed and produced by the World Wide Web Foundation, the Web Index is the world’s first measure of the World Wide Web’s contribution to social, economic and political progress in countries across the world. http://thewebindex.org/about/ Scores are given in the areas of universal access; freedom and openness; relevant content; and empowerment. First released in 2012, the 2014-15 Index has been expanded and refined to include a total of 86 countries and features an enhanced data set, particularly in the areas of gender, Open Data, privacy rights and censorship. The Index combines existing secondary data with new primary data derived from an evidence-based expert assessment survey. The Web Index provides an objective and robust evidence base to inform public dialogue on the steps needed for societies to leverage greater value from the Web. It is published annually and resources permitting, it will continue to be expanded to cover more countries in the coming years. It will eventually allow for comparisons of trends over time and the benchmarking of performance across countries, continuously improving our understanding of the Web’s value for humanity.

Internet access is improving in Myanmar, as more users go online via smart phones connected to newly available and fast 4G services, despite access being comparatively unaffordable. In this recent year report, Myanmar freedom net silently have been declined. This datasets consist of all Myanmar Freedom Net reports.

As of October 2025, India had the largest offline population worldwide, with more than 440 million people lacking internet access. Pakistan ranked second, with approximately 139.39 million people not connected to the internet. Despite these figures, both countries also ranked among those with the highest numbers of internet users globally. Internet access in Africa In 2023, Africa lagged behind other global regions regarding internet penetration rate, as only 37 percent of the continent’s population accessed the web. In contrast, around 91 percent of Europe’s population were internet users. This is heavily influenced by the infrastructure development in the region. However, some improvements are forecasted, as by 2028, the internet penetration rate in Africa will be at an estimated 48.15 percent. Global internet access challenges: disruptions and restrictions Government internet shutdowns around the world are another challenge for internet access. Between 2015 and the first half of 2023, 172 local internet connection disruptions occurred due to protests globally. Moreover, according to a 2023report on internet freedom, almost four out of ten global internet users were deprived of essential freedoms on online platforms. In 2023, 76 new restrictions on internet usage were implemented worldwide. Asia led in imposing these restrictions, accounting for approximately 55 cases across various countries in the region.

In 2024, India's score on internet freedom was 50 out of 100, indicating a “partly free” status. The score was assigned based on three pillars and showed a declining trend since 2017. Alongside plans to expand internet infrastructure, the current government continued to impose internet shutdowns, censored online content, and tried to silence its critics both online and offline. India's internet freedom is strained despite the constitution guaranteeing freedoms of expression and religion.

Here you can find the data and code used to produce the analysis section of the following paper: Legalizing control: the rise of restrictive internet regulation in sub-Saharan Africa. Democratization (2025), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2025.2503370 Abstract: Today, internet freedom is increasingly contingent upon government discretion. Previous research has uncovered how governments use digital strategies to establish control over online communication. However, beyond digital strategies for internet control, conventional tactics also expand the digital repressive toolkit. Governments are gradually creating legal capacities, often under the guise of preventing cybercrime or protecting user privacy, which enable them to punish online expressions of anti-government sentiments or to legalize state surveillance. But when do governments enshrine infringements of digital political and civil rights into law? Using original data on internet legislation across sub-Saharan African countries, I test whether governments’ reactive or preemptive decision-making, influenced by domestic and regional factors, drives restrictive internet regulation. The results indicate that governments restrict digital rights through national laws as a preventive measure, outside the spotlight of political events. Specifically, illiberal governments in regional environments where legal internet controls are widespread are more likely to enact restrictive internet regulation. Anecdotal evidence from cybersecurity laws enacted in Eastern Africa further highlights that governments learn from each other about acceptable levels of rights restrictions and the legal provisions needed to implement these restrictions.

Attitudes towards the European Union. Cooperation between the EU and the own country. Trust in institutions. Media use. Global crisis.

Topics: 1. Attitudes towards the European Union: life satisfaction; frequency of discussions about political matters on international, national, and local level with friends and relatives; opinion leadership; assessment of the current situation in the following areas: national economy, global economy, personal job situation, financial situation of the own household; expected development in the next twelve months regarding: national economy, personal job situation, financial situation of the own household, national employment situation, personal life in general; most important problems in the own country; general direction things are going: in the own country, in the Arab world (only in DZ, EG, TN, JO, LB, LY, PS, MA), in the European Union, in the world; image of the EU; assessment of the relations of the own country with the EU; awareness of financial support for the own country provided by the EU in the context of cooperation programmes; knowledge of specific programmes; areas with the highest benefit from current European Union’s policies for the own country; attitude towards the following statements: EU has appropriate level of involvement in the own country, EU brings peace and stability in region surrounding the own country, EU is an important partner of the own country, sufficient common values of own country and EU as the basis for cooperation, EU support contributes a lot to own country’s development; prioritized areas the EU should play a greater role in in the own country.

1. Cooperation between the EU and the own country: attitude towards selected statements: appropriate amount of information on the EU available in the own country, clear communication from the EU regarding the own country; most effective actors in helping economic development in the own country; most effective actors in helping security and stability in the own country; extent of contribution of the following local actors to economic development in the own country: national government, presidency (not in MA, JO), private companies in the own country, national banks, NGOs, religious organisations, regional public authorities, local public authorities; most important areas of cooperation between the EU and the own country; preferred area to focus EU’s development aid for the own country on.

2. Trust in institutions: trust in selected media: printed press, radio, TV, internet; personal account on: facebook, twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, Vkontakte (only in RU, AM, AZ, BY, GE, MD, UA), Odnoklassniki (only in RU, AM, AZ, BY, GE, MD, UA), Netlog (only in DZ, EG, JO, LB, LY, MA, PS, TN), Lifejournal (only in RU, AM, AZ, BY, UA), Instagram; frequency of using the aforementioned networks; trust in the following institutions: European Union, United Nations, NATO, Arab League (only in DZ, EG, TN, JO, LB, PS, MA, LY); trust in selected national bodies: national government, national parliament, regional public authorities, local public authorities, political parties; satisfaction with democracy in the own country and in the own region; extent of applicability of the following elements to the own country: freedom of speech, free elections, gender equality, protection of the rights of minorities, independence of justice, freedom of press, rights of vote, respect of human rights, rule of law, good governance, lack of corruption; elements that best describe the concept of democracy.

3. Media use: frequency of the following activities: watching television on a TV set, watching television via the internet, listening to the radio, reading printed press, using online social networks, using the internet; preferred sources of information on national political matters; most frequently used TV channels, radio stations, daily newspapers, and websites; preferred TV and radio programmes; most trustworthy media with regard to political news; perceived focus of the following national media primarily on national or on international matters: TV, radio, printed press, websites; assessment of the reliability of the reporting of the aforementioned media; political independence of these media; timeliness; influence on public opinion; attitude towards selected statements: internet contributes to diversity of opinions, link between free and independent media and democracy, journalists should be protected in the exercise of their duties; pref...

Life satisfaction and trust. Opinion towards different privacy and security scenarios. Perceptions of privacy and security issues. Privacy and data protection specifies. Values questions.

Topics: A: life satisfaction; trust in people; trust in institutions (country´s parliament and government, the legal system, the police, the press and broadcasting media, politicians, businesses); frequency of media use (television, radio, printed newspaper, internet, social networks).

B: Opinion towards different privacy and security scenarios (each respondent to be asked a random selection of four of these scenarios) 1. NSA surveillance: governments should vs. should not monitor the communications of people living in other countries; impact of the foreign government´s practices on people´s rights and freedoms (helps to protect people´s rights and freedoms, threatens people´s rights and freedoms, or has no impact); attitude towards this scenario practices of monitoring the communications of people (these practices make me feel vulnerable, make the world a better place, trust in governments that monitor internet and digital communications, even if they are from another country, charity´s officials have no need to worry about their members´ personal information). 2. Biometric logical access control systems: the school should vs. should not be asking people who enter or leave the school to use their fingerprints to identify themselves; impact of the school´s practices on people´s rights and freedoms (helps to protect, threatens, or has no impact); attitude towards this scenario (it would be better to control access to the school by having staff members who know children and parents at the school gate, parents should be consulted about decisions like this, trust the school to store children´s fingerprints safely); reasons for the opinion that it would be better to control access to school by using staff members (it would be more likely to stop wrong people getting into the school, cheaper, doesn´t collect as much information about people, more respectful of people´s rights, don´t like the idea of giving fingerprints generally and of children giving their fingerprints, the technology would not work, another reason). 3. Smart grids / meters: energy companies should vs. should not use data from smart meters to get a more detailed picture of how their customers use energy; impact of the electricity companies´ practices on people´s rights and freedoms (helps to protect, threatens, or has no impact); attitude towards this scenario (the power company should only use the information they collect to bill households and not for any other purpose, the power company should be able to use data collected to market new products to consumers based on the energy they use, energy companies should give information to public authorities to detect fraud or criminal behavior, would support any device that helps ensure the own country does not run out of energy, a smart meter would help to reduce how much energy is used, no trust in the power company to keep this data secure). 4. Internet monitoring: security agencies should vs. should not be watching special kinds of internet use concerning terrorist propaganda; impact of the security agencies´ practices on people´s rights and freedoms (helps to protect, threatens, or has no impact); view about how the parents should react if they find out that their son visits websites that contain terrorist propaganda (the parents should worry, the parents might be right to worry depending on their family background, parents should not worry, because security agencies can tell the difference between innocent users and those they need to watch). 5. ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) cameras: local authorities should be able to use ANPR systems which identify and track all vehicles and calculate their average speed in suburban streets; impact of the local authorities´ practices on people´s rights and freedoms (helps to protect, threatens, or has no impact); better or worse alternatives to ANPR cameras (designing the streets in a way that makes it difficult to drive too fast (e.g. by installing speed bumps), increasing police presence, installing speed control cameras, which identify speeding vehicles but do not track them, making it easier for commuters to use alternatives, for example by improving public transport or introducing incentives for cyclists); reason for this better alternative (more effective a...

As of March 2023, around 56 percent of adults in Luxembourg said digital rights and principles, including more freedom of expression, were fairly well applied in their country. Additionally, a quarter of survey respondents in Bulgaria and Malta said these rights were very well implemented in their countries.

Between January 2012 and February 2024, there were 805 government-imposed internet shutdowns across India, resulting in the highest number of internet blocks in the world so far. According to the Freedom House Index ratings of 2019, India was labelled a partially free democracy and scored a mediocre 55 points out of 100 on the freedom of internet parameters. Cost of shutdowns In 2019, India’s forced internet blackouts lasted well over four thousand hours, resulting in an economic loss of over 1.3 billion U.S. dollars, third in the world’s most economically affected countries, after Iraq and Sudan. The report added that India’s internet blackouts tend to be highly targeted and at times they are down to the level of individual blacklisting. Some internet shutdowns are imposed for a few hours in just a few city districts, while others are a blanket restriction of all internet services across larger regions in the country. As such, the report warns that the full economic impact is likely to be much higher than the stated figures. Justifications for internet shutdowns In 2016, the United Nations declared internet access as a basic human right. Despite this, many governments including India seem to be normalizing internet shutdowns. Public safety was the most common government justification to enable internet shutdowns in 2018, followed by national security. Fake news or hate speech, usually called disinformation, was ranked third. However, official justifications for shutdowns rarely seemed to match actual causes, which frequently included political instability and civilian protests.

In 2023, Russia ranked first by the economic impact of internet shutdowns in the country. The restrictions placed by the government cost 4.02 billion U.S. dollars in the measured year. Internet users in Myanmar endured a total of 18,768 hours of shutdowns, which affected 23.7 million users and had an economic impact of approximately 974 million U.S. dollars. Brazil had the largest population impacted by the internet shutdowns. Online shutdowns and blackouts are generally seen as an indicator of low internet freedom.

Reporters Without Borders' press freedom index in Russia in 2025 was recorded at 24.57 points, having decreased compared to the previous year. That corresponded to a deterioration of the media freedom situation, according to the index methodology. Thus, Russia was placed 171st in the global ranking of 180 countries and one of the lowest in Europe. Furthermore, Freedom House ranked freedom on the internet in Russia at 20 out of 100 points in 2024, where 100 points referred to the highest degree of internet freedom.