Voidly vs
Freedom House.

• The old Twitter-block example cited IR-2026-0142. The source checked for this comparison is an IODA disruption record, with no affected-domain attribution; it does not support that Twitter claim.
• Old coverage, incident, archive-size, operator and MCP counts are retained only in historical text. They have different populations and cannot be read as a synchronized current comparison.
• A source-linked country-day classifier is not a validation of censorship cause. Its current label-composition caveat and distinct country-ranking/forecast targets must accompany performance claims.
• The old “gold standard,” exhaustive institutional-citation list and blanket absence of Freedom House interfaces were not established by a matched evaluation here. Current comparison text makes narrower, documented claims.

Voidly-original material is CC BY 4.0. Upstream data keeps its source license. Public access and licensing are different questions; current account-key allowances and endpoint limits are documented in Pricing. Current task/settlement release details are on Voidpay.

Historical text captured from the original source on 2026-09-06. That is a capture date, not an observation date. These earlier claims are preserved for review, may be stale or incorrect, and should not be copied as current facts. The corrected comparison above takes precedence.

Voidly vs Freedom House — Real-Time Censorship Data API

How Voidly compares to Freedom House. Both organizations track internet freedom — Freedom House publishes annual narrative reports, Voidly delivers real-time machine-readable data. Honest comparison.

Freedom House writes the annual report. Voidly publishes the live data feed. They complement each other.

Voidly does not replace Freedom House analysis. We respect their methodology and recommend their reports for qualitative scoring and narrative context.

Original comparison rows

Original: what Freedom House does well

Freedom House is the gold standard for qualitative country-level analysis of internet freedom. Their annual "Freedom on the Net" report has been published since 2009, with a network of independent in-country researchers, lawyers, and activists scoring 70+ countries across 21 questions on access, content limits, and user-rights violations. The methodology is transparent, peer-reviewed, and widely cited by US Congressional hearings, EU policy work, the UN Human Rights Council, and major newsrooms. When journalists need a single authoritative score for "how free is the internet in country X this year," Freedom House is the answer. Their geopolitical narrative analysis — connecting censorship events to political context — is something no automated system can replicate.

Original: what Voidly does differently

Voidly operates at a different frequency and granularity. Where Freedom House publishes once per year, Voidly ingests new measurements every 6 hours. Where Freedom House scores at the country level, Voidly tracks 7,500+ individual tracked incidents with evidence permalinks down to the domain, ASN, and test type. Our data is machine-readable (free CC BY 4.0 JSON, RSS, BibTeX), and queryable via REST API and MCP server — so AI agents, dashboards, and research pipelines can consume it directly. We use ML (GradientBoosting, leave-country-out MEAN F1 0.71 — 0.63 on the 61 countries with n≥30) to classify network-level events into structured incidents with confidence scores. We do not produce narrative country reports; we produce the evidence layer those narratives can cite.

Original: when to use which

Original: together better

These are complementary tools, not competitors. A serious researcher writing about internet freedom in Iran should cite Freedom House for the annual scoring and political context, and Voidly for the day-by-day evidence supporting specific claims. Freedom House's analysts are humans interpreting events; Voidly's pipeline is machines measuring them. Both are needed.

The old page’s final CTA described all data/ML/forecast reads as free without a key, applied one CC BY license, and described a handful of metered Voidpay endpoints. Current access, source licensing and Pay releases must be checked separately; that text was not a universal capability or pricing guarantee.