Censorship Reports by Country
Browse country-level analysis of ISP blocking behavior, neutrality scores, and injected address data collected through the Net Neutrality Monitor probe network.
Country reports break down the types of content blocked within each jurisdiction — from gambling and file-sharing to streaming and news domains — and show how individual ISPs rank on neutrality. Each report combines probe data with injected address and blacklist records to give a focused view of local conditions.
Featured country reports
Italy
Gambling, file-sharing, and streaming blocks tracked across major ISPs.
Denmark
Neutrality scoring with injected address correlation by provider.
Switzerland
DNS-level blocking patterns and ISP-level neutrality rankings.
Thailand
Detected content categories and probe coverage across regions.
Turkey
ISP filtering behavior with deep and lightly tested domain breakdowns.
More countries
China, Colombia, Estonia, Finland, Korea Republic of, and Sweden are also tracked.
Sample ISP neutrality view
The following snapshot illustrates how ISP scores are presented within a country report. Values vary by jurisdiction.
| ISP | Blocking categories observed | Neutrality status | Injected addresses |
|---|---|---|---|
| Example ISP A | Gambling, streaming | Flagged | 3 |
| Example ISP B | None detected | Neutral | 0 |
| Example ISP C | File-sharing | Flagged | 1 |
Sample figures only; see each country report for full data.
Continue exploring
Cross-reference blocking data with the DNS server list, or review the injected address blacklist.
Country-level reports on the Net Neutrality Monitor bring together probe measurements, injected address data, and blacklist records to show how internet filtering actually behaves inside a given jurisdiction. Rather than relying on anecdotal complaints, the platform grounds each report in continuous, automated observation from distributed measurement nodes. The result is a clearer picture of what is being restricted, by which providers, and through which technical mechanisms, helping researchers and curious citizens alike separate rumor from evidence when assessing local network conditions and the broader state of net neutrality across regions with very different regulatory traditions and enforcement cultures.
Inside each report, blocked content is grouped into recognizable categories such as gambling platforms, file-sharing services, streaming destinations, and news or informational sites, making it easier to see patterns at a glance. ISP rankings add another layer of context, comparing how individual providers within the same country perform on neutrality indicators. Because the underlying probes run continuously, the figures shift over time as blocks are added, lifted, or quietly modified, giving readers a sense of movement rather than a static snapshot. The aim is to make technical censorship behavior legible without requiring users to interpret raw packet captures themselves.
The monitoring approach relies on a distributed network of voluntary probes that periodically test reachability and consistency of responses for known addresses. When responses diverge from expected patterns, the system flags potential interference and feeds those observations into the country dashboards. Injected address tracking complements this by looking for unexpected DNS replies or routing detours that suggest tampering. Together, these signals form a multi-layered view, reducing the chance that a single transient outage or a localized routing quirk is mistaken for deliberate blocking by an upstream provider.
Featured countries are highlighted to draw attention to jurisdictions where blocking activity is particularly visible, politically significant, or technically distinctive, while the broader catalog invites exploration of quieter markets that still surface informative patterns. Reports are designed to be useful to journalists tracking digital rights, academics studying comparative internet governance, and ordinary readers who simply want to understand whether their own connections match the published findings. The platform treats transparency as the foundation of trust, presenting methodology alongside results so that anyone can evaluate how each neutrality score is derived and how confidently it reflects real-world conditions on the ground.