How we handle requests for removal from the blacklist database

An Internet filter can block a domain, an IP address or a particular URL, yet each block may arise from a different technical or legal cause. A domain denied by one DNS resolver may remain reachable by IP address, while a shared hosting address may affect hundreds of unrelated sites. These distinctions make simple removal requests difficult to assess unless they identify exactly what was observed, where it happened and why the record is considered inaccurate.

Each request is therefore reviewed against reproducible measurements and the available information about the affected resource. Net Neutrality Monitor is a beta, volunteer-supported project powered by AirVPN, so its records are published for indicative research rather than as binding regulatory decisions. Removing an entry changes the project’s dataset; it does not order an ISP, DNS provider or website operator to restore access.

What the blacklist database represents

The blacklist database contains observations collected through monitoring and submitted URLs or IP addresses. Results are associated with the country and network path involved, since blocking can vary between an Australian broadband connection, a mobile network and an overseas resolver. The project distinguishes DNS-based interference from direct IP blocking, and it may also record the precise URL path when only part of a website is affected.

A removal changes what Net Neutrality Monitor reports, not the behaviour of the infrastructure that imposed the block. It also does not establish that a site is lawful, harmless or suitable for every audience. The relevant question is narrower: is the existing record factually incorrect, too broad, duplicated or no longer supported by current measurements?

Why the same address can look different

Granularity matters because domain names, URLs and IP addresses do not have one-to-one relationships. A publisher’s domain may redirect to a CDN, load media from a subdomain or resolve to a shared server. Conversely, an IP address can change hosts, be reassigned or use dynamic DNS. A record originally associated with one service may therefore become stale without anyone submitting a new request.

The distinction between control paths is central to this work. The technical explanation in DNS versus IP blocking shows why successful access to an IP address does not automatically prove that its domain is available through DNS. Requests that combine both forms of access need separate evidence and can result in separate corrections.

Removal candidates should be described at the narrowest useful level. “My website is blocked” may be insufficient if the problem concerns one redirected login page, one media path or one country. A request for a whole domain when only a subdomain is affected may lead to a narrowed correction rather than complete removal. This preserves meaningful findings without allowing a technical fix at one endpoint to conceal another.

How a removal request is reviewed

Review begins with the identity of the affected resource and the requester’s authority to act for it. A site operator can normally establish control through a domain-specific email address, hosting account or other verifiable method. A request concerning someone else’s service may require evidence of authorisation, although a member of the public can still report an obvious false positive without claiming ownership.

The submitted observation is then reproduced. Reviewers compare the original result with current DNS queries, IP connections and HTTP responses, taking note of timestamps, resolvers and network locations. The check establishes whether the interference remains reproducible and whether it applies to the whole resource or only one path. Temporary errors, resolver outages and failed probes are not treated as evidence of censorship.

Affiliate-driven content can make ownership and relevance particularly difficult to determine. An article about online roulette guidance, for example, might share advertising infrastructure with unrelated services. A category-wide complaint does not demonstrate that every domain returned by a measurement is the same operator’s content.

Path specificity also protects legitimate findings from being removed too broadly. When a source uses separate article, image or download addresses, a request must identify the exact resource. Coverage of specialist work such as 3D crime-scene models illustrates why a media endpoint can have a different technical footprint from the publisher’s main page.

Australian context and supporting evidence

Australia does not have a single Internet path. An NBN connection, a fixed-line service from a retail provider and mobile data on networks operated by Telstra, Optus or T-Mobile may use different resolvers and filtering arrangements. A website that fails on café Wi-Fi in Melbourne may behave differently on a phone in Sydney, particularly when the phone switches from Wi-Fi to mobile data during a journey. Consumer DNS settings, iCloud Private Relay, Android Private DNS, security applications and VPNs can further change the observed result.

Australian law also requires careful separation between different filtering grounds. ACMA can issue blocking notices under the Telecommunications Act 1997, while the Online Safety Act 2021 supports certain age-related measures. Offshore interactive casino gambling is restricted by the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. An editorial article explaining baccarat betting analysis may not be the same legal object as the gambling operator to which it links, so the exact resource and publisher must be identified. Where the Privacy Act 1988 applies, personal information supplied for review should remain separate from public monitoring records.

Useful request details include:

• The exact URL, domain or IP address, including affected paths
• The country, resolver, carrier and approximate time of each observation
• Whether the block occurs during DNS resolution, IP connection or both
• The reason the record is disputed and evidence of control or authorisation

Strong supporting evidence includes:

• Probe results, resolver responses, screenshots and relevant HTTP status codes
• Repeated tests from more than one Australian network path
• Documentation of redirects, shared hosting, CDNs or dynamic DNS
• Proof that the requester controls the domain or can speak for the affected operator

Removal outcomes and the practical takeaway

Every disposition reflects both the submitted evidence and a fresh reproduction attempt. A request does not have to prove that the underlying content is lawful; it must show that the recorded interference is wrong, outdated or too broad. Broader policy and technical context can be found in ICTD ASP resources, while project findings remain tied to their stated measurement conditions.

Reviews commonly distinguish among complete removal, a narrower correction, retention of a reproducible finding and deferral while more evidence is gathered. The appropriate outcome depends on what is actually blocked, not merely on the domain name supplied by the requester.

Requested change	Main issue	Checks performed	Likely disposition
Remove a domain entry	The whole domain may not be responsible	Ownership, redirects, current DNS and IP tests	Removed if erroneous; narrowed if only part is affected
Remove a URL path	The interference may affect one endpoint only	Exact path, redirect chain and repeated probes	Path-specific suppression or a corrected entry
Remove an IP address	The address may be shared, dynamic or reassigned	Hosting, routing, assignment history and direct tests	Retained if justified; removed if attribution or blocking is wrong
Correct a country result	The result may reflect a resolver or temporary fault	Country, resolver, carrier and timestamp	Revised to reflect reproducible country-specific behaviour

The practical takeaway is that a removal succeeds when the monitored identifier, Australian reproduction path and authority to speak for the resource are all clear. Precision protects genuine findings from being erased while allowing false positives to be corrected promptly.