Measure internet censorship (ooni.org)

149 pointsby Bluestein13 hours ago92 comments

mitxela 8 hours ago

There's a pretty bad bias problem here because the probe app scans domains that are frequently blocked in dictatorships, but doesn't scan domains that are frequently blocked in "democracies", like Anna's Archive. Then it ends up looking like the dictatorship countries have all the censorship.

qerghnui 8 hours ago

I would only use the term "censorship" to refer to the prevention of speech based on its content. Content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions aren't censorship according to the way I use the word, and neither is copyright protection.

Note that censorship isn't necessarily bad and restrictions on speech that aren't censorship aren't necessarily acceptable. The prohibition on child pornography is censorship but I support it, while I am opposed to IP law in its entirety.

Gathering6678 8 hours ago

Anna's Archive is prevented by some countries from visiting because of its (presumably illegal) content. All restrictions are based on its content.

qerghnui 8 hours ago

Is that in fact the reason? I'm not familiar with what's happening outside the USA.

Gathering6678 7 hours ago

See "Spotify lawsuit" in the wikipedia article. Also:

"In January 2024, Italy's ... ordered major internet service providers (ISPs) in the country to block Anna's Archive due to a copyright complaint..."

"In March 2024, ... ordered major ISPs in the Netherlands to block Anna's Archive and LibGen due to a request by advocacy group BREIN (which represents the interests of the Dutch entertainment industry)."

"In December 2024, the UK Publishers Association won an order from the High Court of Justice requiring major ISPs to block Anna's Archive... under section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna%27s_Archive

asdfaoeu 7 hours ago

I don't think they are disputing it was blocked more the reason was copyright not other reasons.

mitxela 7 hours ago

Gathering6678 6 hours ago

My point is - copyright is also a "content related" reason: some site is banned because the content of the site is infringing the copyright of someone else.

In the end, all censorship is content related. One could definitely argue along the spectrum of "all" to "none" censorship is appropriate, but I would guess most people actually hold the belief that "some" censorship is okay, while disagreeing on "which" censorship is okay.

If this is the case, then the bias problem is indeed relevant.

Gathering6678 6 hours ago

Plus, this sentence in the original post I replied to really struck me as absurd: "Content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions aren't censorship".

Let's imagine a country bans the distribution of all writings by authors in another country/region disregard of the content. It would not be censorship according to the original post.

The fact that a ban encompasses a wide variety of content could mean simply that it is difficult/undesirable to limit the scope of the ban, but the censorship always originates from the content.

WillPostForFood 4 hours ago

You are misunderstanding time/place/manner restrictions. The rule must apply equally to all speakers regardless of topic, opinion, or political stance. If you banned "the distribution of all writings by authors in another country/region" you aren't applying the restriction equally.

kurthr 6 hours ago

It all depends on what you're censoring.

Is it a bad sign if CSAM, Personal (medical, financial, etc) Records, Snuff, and Malware/Ransomeware are censored? What about manufacture of WMDs, terrorism, hate speech? Free software, and copyrighted music? Historical records of genocide?

SV_BubbleTime 6 hours ago

As an aside… the if there was a real system out there that was trustworthy, it would have all of this and it would be the evidence you actually need to trust it.

If someone had a secure system for some of the worst stuff out there and it lasted more than a minute, pay attention because they might have actually solved some real problems.

fsflover 2 hours ago

> if there was a real system out there that was trustworthy, it would have all of this and it would be the evidence you actually need to trust it.

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I2p

averysmallbird 6 hours ago

Scare quoting democracies is probably telling, but OONI absolutely does test content blocked in Western countries. https://explorer.ooni.org/domain/annas-archive.org

vlyan 3 hours ago

scare quoting """""""""democracies""""""""" is perfectly acceptable when it couldn't be more obvious that those so-called democracies do anything but represent the will of their peoples. do you know anyone who'd voted for having to scan their face to access verboten webseites? to have encryption backdoors in their messengers? to have state-mandated spyware preinstalled on their phones?

armchairhacker 2 hours ago

They don’t represent the people’s will, but unfortunately many people believe in censorship, so even if they were true direct democracies we may still see some.

troupo an hour ago

> if they were true direct democracies we may still see some.

I think we would see more.

zaik 2 hours ago

Yes, I do know people who voted for the party that pushes things like this in my country.

nephihaha 19 minutes ago

In the UK, both of the main parties push internet censorship. As do the third party and the SNP.

snowram an hour ago

Plenty of people are happy to surrender their freedom for a feeling of security.

dartharva 31 minutes ago

...you'd be surprised, plenty of regular people actually want these things to happen. State is God for reliably the majority of the population of the world (seeing as the majority resides in China and South Asia).

orbital-decay 3 hours ago

Internet blocking is a last resort for regimes that can't do anything against the source of the information or intermediaries, but it's a red herring in regimes that can. Anna's Archive has a political position and is one of the very few voices that survived the immense pressure. How many didn't? How many attempts were not performed at all because of it? This suppression is really hard to measure, OONI can't do anything here, it measures blocking. It's very simple to understand.

howunfortunate 12 hours ago

Hmm.

I'd wager the vast majority of internet censorship is within platform, like that done by Reddit mods.

The most egregious example I've seen in my lifetime was when old Twitter decided to censor a NYPost article, down to blocking sharing in DMs.

It seems that type of example is entirely missed here. Is there any attempt to capture that signal?

Bluestein 12 hours ago

As a thought exercise, could it be captured?

howunfortunate 12 hours ago

Depends on the platform. On Reddit, definitely yes, as almost all censorship is "deletion style" where the target post or comment is initially visible until the mods suppress it.

But your point is well taken, it's definitely more challenging and expensive than what's being done here.

Bluestein 12 hours ago

It would be one heck of a challenge, but, almost by definition "impossible" - as a naive guess, perhaps (for those platforms that have opened code) characterize some statistical signatures that "arbitrary data" ran through it (simulating user activity) would show ...

... and then check for those (or, counterexamples) in the wild.-

mitxela 8 hours ago

That used to be the case on Reddit, not any more as about half of all accounts start off shadowbanned and mods approve their posts.

goatsi 10 hours ago

Join the referral program for a low cost online pharmacy. Post a link on each platform informing the users about the availability of male health products. Measure if it gets removed.

eigenspace 12 hours ago

If you count platform moderation as 'censorship' then there's practically no uncensored public spaces on the internet.

Literally even 4chan has moderation.

Nobody, not even 4chan users, want an actually unmoderated space.

like_any_other 12 hours ago

You still want to know the extent of that 'moderation' that is totally not censorship. E.g. Facebook and Instagram ban white nationalism, and Youtube has banned American Renaissance, meaning we can infer Google bans white nationalism too, as American Renaissance is guilty of nothing else.

You may agree or disagree with the ban, but surely you agree that we should be aware of such Overton window enforcement?

zrobotics 12 hours ago

4chan users might want that, but even for the types of people willing to operate a site like that they don't want to be liable for the amount of CSAM, piracy, and other legally objectionable material that would end up on a fully unmoderated site.

eigenspace 12 hours ago

Deciding what is spam and blocking it is moderation or "censorship".

If 4chan didnt have spam filters, the users would be begging for it almost immediately because the website would become unusable.

zrobotics 10 hours ago

We might be talking past each other a bit. I agree that without any sort of spam filter a comment site would become unusable.

What I was trying to point out is that there are a lot of users of these 'edgy' sites that would like to post content that the site owners don't want them posting. So the site owner censors and removes CSAM and piracy so that the site isn't immediately in a legal black hole. The site owners remove content that at least some of the users would want be a use they find it morally or legally objectionable. Spam is kinda orthogonal to that point, since neither the site owner or the users want to see it.

eigenspace 4 hours ago

What you said about spam is exactly what I'm trying to point out.

There are forms of moderation that we often dont even think of as moderation or 'censorship' because its removing content that "nobody" wants to see. One may argue that the spammers are users of the site who are being censored.

Also, this is a side note, but I'd assume that the overwhelming majority of even 4chan users are in favour of CSAM being banned from the site, even if there are some users who want to see it (i could be wrong about that, it's not like i even have anecdotes to back that up)

numpad0 an hour ago

CSAM and piracy aren't the worst of examples on a site like 4chan. People... like clinically insane people just keeps scriptbombing someone's private addresses and bomb threats and other schizophrenic copypastas(not regular ones like Blackbird speed checks or "Glasses are versatile", but more like cognitohazards) as well as there will be viagra/cialis/poker/prostitution/roblox spams. I think those in that order should be the primary concern for keeping BBS running because those chase normal people away.

For the two categories mentioned above that are plainly illegal, I think, ironically, you can probably just keep AI classifiers running and wait for calls from NCMEC or DMCA emails, exploiting safe harbor clauses and/or by pointing at reasonable measures you've taken. If you have a large post volumes and short public log retention(private logs will probably have to be kept), that would help keeping the pressure low for those.

NDlurker 11 hours ago

Some of the moderation is just banning people with differing opinions.

mitxela 8 hours ago

Some of the opinions that differ are really bad ones.

NDlurker 7 hours ago

Yes, but some of them aren't. There are instances of people being banned because they participated in another sub. Instances of people being banned for criticizing Israel. It wouldn't be so much of an issue if it was like back in the day where there were a thousand independent boards. But Reddit killed that.

howunfortunate 11 hours ago

My comment above does not rely on the premise that all moderation is censorship. Only that some Reddit mods engage in censorship.

Onavo 9 hours ago

Regardless there's value to know exactly what topics are off limits and for which platforms. Censorship needs to be measured and quantified (probably with vectors).

Levitz 8 hours ago

Moderation as in "You can't call the other posted 'fuckface'" and moderation as in "I will delete every mention of this news story because it's negative to the agenda I want to push" are not, at all, the same thing.

In fact, I wouldn't call the latter "moderation" at all, rather it's mods abusing their power to push political propaganda, but they do it through moderation in terms of action.

mitxela 8 hours ago

What if the news story is just calling someone fuckface? A lot of them are like that in this age of slop news.

analog8374 7 hours ago

I want an unmoderated space. Or rather, I want the tools of moderation to be in the hands of the users instead of a central authority.

Giving an anonymous rando the power to censor my conversation is abhorrent. And it's absurd that most people are ok with that.

tosapple 6 hours ago

i can name at least (1) thing that wants "unmoderated space": LLMs.

orbital-decay 2 hours ago

>there's practically no uncensored public spaces on the internet

Yes? Moderation is a form of censorship with a different connotation (the one you agree with vs the other you don't). I don't see how it's controversial

urbnspacecowboy 11 hours ago

> old Twitter decided to censor a NYPost article

Which article, about what subject?

howunfortunate 11 hours ago

Are there NYPost articles you feel people should be prevented from DMing? Or posting, for that matter?

qerghnui 10 hours ago

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

The story you are referring to involved the New York Post or its affiliates breaking in to Hunter Biden's laptop (a felony) and publishing his personal correspondence, complete with unredacted phone numbers and email addresses. This violated Twitter's policies against doxxing and dissemination of hacked materials. Characterizing this as censorship is misleading; the story contained no newsworthy information and its publication violated longstanding Twitter policy. It's hard to imagine Twitter functioning without such a policy. I don't see any reason the New York Post should get away with violating it just because it claims to be a newspaper.

The Wall Street Journal, a Murdoch rag like the Post and hardly known for its liberal bias, declined to publish this information, which is why it wound up in the disreputable Post instead. Respectable journalists have ethical standards. Act like thugs, get treated like thugs.

P.S. Twitter is free to make whatever editorial decisions it pleases. Trying to make them publish something they don't want to publish is compelled speech. Compelling speech in the name of freedom of speech is hypocritical.

nixon_why69 4 hours ago

Your phone relaying your voice to someone isn't compelled speech on the part of the telecoms.

There's an argument that when a platform is big enough, it's a common carrier.

ThePinion 11 hours ago

They censored the Hunter Biden laptop story weeks before the election.

thewanderer1983 10 hours ago

Not just reddit mods. Google 2013 Eglin Air Force Base incident reddit.

walrus01 11 hours ago

For everyone in this thread saying "but the platforms!", I don't disagree with you. Extensive censorship exists. But I don't believe that's the intended purpose of this tool and the metrics it collects. It doesn't measure censorship at what we would call layers 4-7 in the OSI model. It's concerned with IP reachability and layer 3. It collects valid data for that purpose.

reisse 9 hours ago

Do they distinguish between "censored in transit" and "blocked by destination"?

In the last years many sites started to drop/block connections from the countries like China and Russia. It is sad to see how Internet is becoming more and more fragmented.

LoganDark 8 hours ago

The latter one isn't censorship, it's geofencing. Which is incredibly unfortunate (and always has been), but it's not censorship.

mitxela 7 hours ago

Which is a type of censorship.

TaLiTr 7 hours ago

Many websites block UK IPs rather than comply with some recent KYC laws.

sandeepkd 12 hours ago

I really wonder if anyone installs it on their machine. May be I am one off but I am Hearing about this for first time, don't recognize any of their partners.

8organicbits 10 hours ago

Many of the partners are country focused but the Tor Project, Citizen Lab, and Internet Society are well known to me.

thenthenthen 10 hours ago

I would love to contribute, but i do not think it is a good idea to install and run this in China…enough said. Also i already know the outcome: network is fast, everything is blocked

mitxela 8 hours ago

Do they arrest you just for trying to load a blocked site?

Gathering6678 8 hours ago

They do not. But it is pretty pointless I would guess: probably most of the domains this tries to visit will be blocked.

mitxela 7 hours ago

Documenting that fact is the point.

Gathering6678 6 hours ago

In China's case, it is a very well known and documented fact that heavy censorship is present. Of course if one thinks additional knowledge on that is useful enough to solicit wide user participation, that is certainly one way of thinking.

Panzerschrek 3 hours ago

Pretty strong censorship. That's why I can't even open this link in my country.

1e1a 11 hours ago

Would be cool if it also measured the latency and throughput across many different protocols to detect deviations from net neutrality.

mitxela 8 hours ago

Related: you can "traceroute" a specific port, TCP or UDP. Different routes for different ports is a sure sign of tampering. Check the man page for syntax.

altmind 3 hours ago

Ripe atlas have thousand of endpoint that can ping/fetch.

piskov 12 hours ago

> Measure the speed and performance of your network with the NDT test

This is very much in line with the likes of pokemon go, wiki landmark projects and what have you (those are nice things to have for autonomous drones/missiles to navigate only with vision when gps/cellular/starlink is actively blocked).

—

Russia banned stuff like speedtest because things like that may help “map” the network, aid NSA to model malware propagation, etc.

Not that this should matter when you have cisco, dell, nokia hardware, but it won’t hurt either.

—

I mean come on, some nuts even willingly install stuff like this: https://atlas.ripe.net/

progbits 11 hours ago

Are you arguing for security by obscurity?

flexagoon 8 hours ago

That's the point of open data. Anyone can use it, and that includes the NSA or any other state actor you don't like, but it also includes anyone else. I don't see what's wrong with running things like RIPE Atlas if the data is actually open and not just given to the NSA only for their purposes.

analog8374 7 hours ago

"Dictatorship" is the standard forum design. Reddit, HN, X, Lemmy... All of them. And censorship is common. We literally prefer it that way. I think it's to create a solid blame trail. I think that's a necessary thing.

howunfortunate 7 hours ago

I think what 'we' prefer is the bad team's posts being censored, but none of our team's stuff getting censored.

But what we prefer and what's good for us are two drastically different things.

like_any_other 12 hours ago

The most pervasive censorship is who and what social media companies decide to block or suppress. Even in places like China. It's deliberately harder to measure, but any censorship measurement that omits it is like measuring war casualties, but ignoring those on the front lines.

geraneum 12 hours ago

Not to minimize the impact of social media censorship, but one should really live in a country like Iran to grasp what pervasive censorship is. Most people born and raised in the relative freedoms provided in modern democratic systems have no clue what it feels like when you have such dictatorships. I say this because, looking at the current trends, we _could be_ heading in that direction, and the comparison is apt.

howunfortunate 11 hours ago

I'm curious what trends you see towards censorship?

Elon presumably being an exemplar for current trends: Twitter is unarguably far less censored than it was before (though censorship is still present). And Meta took note and also turned down its censorship significantly in response.

The Epstein files, while far less than hoped for by many, are another example of a trend towards sharing far more sensitive info than has been typical by past administrations.

There are many good examples you could point to of increased authoritarianism, but censorship in particular seems to be on the backswing, if anything.

Edit: oof, it's extremely concerning that the comment below was flagged

geraneum 11 hours ago

It’s too soon for such a conclusion IMO. The pervasive Iran-like censorship I was talking about will rear its ugly head when those authoritarian regimes are established. It’s a tool and I can assure you it will be used extensively. This is nothing new really.

P.S. the Epstein files were just a cruel joke! I wouldn’t list it there.

howunfortunate 11 hours ago

It doesn't add up for me. If the goal is simply authoritarian control, why would they employ less censorship than their predecessors?

Surely they could get away with at the very least the same amount?

geraneum 10 hours ago

> simply authoritarian control

There’s nothing simple about authoritarian control.

Who says we have less censorship? Sure people can tweet all kind of stuff without getting banned. Fine, but at the same time US president is removing news networks he doesn’t like from press briefings. That’s just one example. To say the censorship is in decline is baffling.

ACCount39 9 hours ago

Multiple jurisdictions have tried to play the stupid games of "we'll make a dumb fuck law that creates problems for you, the website operator, and if you don't conform, we'll sinkhole you at ISP level". Platforms like Xitter and Telegram being the common early targets.

The "age verification" push is a big move in that direction in Western countries. "Think of the children" is an evergreen excuse for authoritarian measures.

qerghnui 9 hours ago

>Twitter is unarguably far less censored than it was before (though censorship is still present). And Meta took note and also turned down its censorship significantly in response.

A publisher making editorial decisions is not censorship. You have no right to demand Twitter publish your speech. If you don't like their editorial policies, you are free to go elsewhere. You are not prevented from speaking or even prevented from reaching an audience. None of these platforms is a monopoly.

For my money, I would prefer to hang out somewhere where people don't openly celebrate the murder of my family. Would you deny me that right? If so, you are not on the side of freedom. I don't object to the existence of forums like /pol/ or today's Twitter; if you object to the existence of moderated forums like Twitter in its prime then you are the one restricting speech.

Today, we see flagrant examples of the literal government literally prohibiting people from speaking their minds. Literal masked thugs with literal guns are literally grabbing people off the streets. This is censorship like the Soviets did it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu3q1eYyR1A

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/19/us/politics/trump-cnn-msn...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fcc-disney-abc-early-license-re...

https://www.aclum.org/cases/ozturk-v-trump/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2026/07/31/p...

https://www.propublica.org/article/caught-in-crackdown-ice-c...

Twitter has certainly relaxed its policies on racism and violence in recent years, and perhaps you think that's a good thing. But point out that they're paying Nazis to post about their hatred of Jews (an undisputed fact even if you object to the framing) and they'll file SLAPP suits to try to bankrupt you. They very much go in for censorship (the real kind, backed up by guys with guns) when it benefits them.

https://www.fire.org/news/fire-statement-x-corps-lawsuit-and...

howunfortunate 7 hours ago

> A publisher making editorial decisions is not censorship. You have no right to compel other people to publish your speech. If you don't like Twitter's editorial policies, you are free to go elsewhere

When a social media deletes users posts because they cross a political line, it may not be government censorship, but it's very obviously still censorship.

It's very hard to take opinions like yours seriously because I know exactly how you'd react if all your HN posts were deleted because you're calling people "Nazis"

qerghnui 7 hours ago

I exclusively use websites that "censor" their users. Millions upon millions of people are with me on this. Would you deny us our right to organize as we please?

>It's very hard to take opinions like yours seriously because I know exactly how you'd react if all your HN posts were deleted because you're calling people "Nazis"

If you deny that there are literal and unabashed Nazis on Twitter these days, you are wrong. I am not using the term as a pejorative; I am using it as a straightforward descriptor for people who post pictures of swastikas and SS officers, start their posts with "Hitler was right", have "1488" in their bios, and write my name (((like this))) every damn time. These sorts of people would not be offended by being called Nazis and are not shy about their desire to see me gassed to death. Twitter paid them to say these things and then tried to censor people who criticized them for it, and that's a fact.

Hell, I didn't even call this guy a Nazi:

https://tinyurl.com/5n94mk74

like_any_other 7 hours ago

> A publisher making editorial decisions is not censorship.

Are you really going to conflate publishing with operating a social media platform? Regardless, if those editorial decisions are meant to suppress a viewpoint, it is censorship - government censorship is only one kind.

> You have no right to demand Twitter publish your speech.

Nobody argued that what social media do is illegal, only that it counts as censorship.

bl00per 4 hours ago

We are seeing such widespread and severe (literally lethal) censorship in the U.S. that I find the discussion here jaw-dropping. Does no one on this site read the news?

This is the current lead story on the NYT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/19/us/politics/trump-cnn-msn...

Trump banned disfavored news outlets from the White House.

He also tried to take TV stations off the air for hosting comics who made fun of him, cut funding for public broadcasters in order to "punish or suppress disfavored expression", scrubbed information from government websites, and endeavored to punish "woke" universities.

https://universityobserver.ie/silencing-late-night-censorshi...

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/31/media-broadcasting-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_onlin...

https://apnews.com/article/harvard-trump-funding-appeal-f652...

People have been arrested for writing editorials he didn't like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_R%C3%BCmeysa_%C3%...

Hundreds have been arrested for protesting against ICE:

https://www.democracynow.org/2026/4/21/caught_crackdown_thom...

ICE agents have murdered two protesters to date.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ren%C3%A9e_Good

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Alex_Pretti

>Elon presumably being an exemplar for current trends

He is that: he is using lawfare to silence people criticizing X for hosting and funding white supremacists.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-twitter-elon-mus...

https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-media-matters-lawsuit-a...

I think hundreds of people being arrested for their protected speech is a more objectionable form of censorship than a few Twitter bans.

NooneAtAll3 10 hours ago

censorship of websites is done to move more of population onto social platforms you control

one isn't ignoring the other