53
F
REEDOM ON THE
N
ET
2013
M
ETHODOLOGY
&
C
HECKLIST OF
Q
UESTIONS
The index does not rate governments or government performance per se, but rather the real-world
rights and freedoms enjoyed by individuals within each country. While digital media freedom may
be primarily affected by state actions, pressures and attacks by nonstate actors, including the
criminal underworld, are also considered. Thus, the index ratings generally reflect the interplay of
a variety of actors, both governmental and nongovernmental, including private corporations.
The index aims to capture the entire “enabling environment” for internet freedom within each
country through a set of 21 methodology questions, divided into three subcategories, which are
intended to highlight the vast array of relevant issues. Each individual question is scored on a
varying range of points. Assigning numerical points allows for comparative analysis among the
countries surveyed and facilitates an examination of trends over time. Countries are given a total
score from 0 (best) to 100 (worst) as well as a score for each sub-category. Countries scoring
between 0 to 30 points overall are regarded as having a “Free” internet and digital media
environment; 31 to 60, “Partly Free”; and 61 to 100, “Not Free”. An accompanying country report
provides narrative detail on the points covered by the methodology questions.
The methodology examines the level of internet freedom through a set of 21 questions and nearly
100 accompanying subpoints, organized into three groupings:
Obstacles to Access—including infrastructural and economic barriers to access;
governmental efforts to block specific applications or technologies; legal and ownership
control over internet and mobile phone access providers.
Limits on Content—including filtering and blocking of websites; other forms of censorship
and self-censorship; manipulation of content; the diversity of online news media; and usage
of digital media for social and political activism.
Violations of User Rights—including legal protections and restrictions on online activity;
surveillance and limits on privacy; and repercussions for online activity, such as legal
prosecution, imprisonment, physical attacks, or other forms of harassment.
The purpose of the subpoints is to guide analysts regarding factors they should consider while
evaluating and assigning the score for each methodology question. After researchers submitted their
draft scores, Freedom House convened five regional review meetings and numerous international
conference calls, attended by Freedom House staff and over 70 local experts, scholars, and civil
society representatives from the countries under study. During the meetings, participants
reviewed, critiqued, and adjusted the draft scores—based on the set coding guidelines—through
careful consideration of events, laws, and practices relevant to each item. After completing the
regional and country consultations, Freedom House staff did a final review of all scores to ensure
their comparative reliability and integrity.
T
HE
S
CORING
P
ROCESS
869
