For the sixteenth consecutive year, internet freedom around the world has contracted rather than expanded, according to the newly published "Freedom on the Internet 2026" report from Freedom House. Among the 38 countries surveyed, Serbia lands in the "partly free" category with 66 points out of 100 - a ranking that places it closer to Turkey, Europe's only "not free" entry, than to most of the continent.
A Continent Mostly Free, With Two Notable Exceptions
Serbia's score puts it in the company of Brazil and Ghana, two points above Ukraine and three below Hungary, which scores 69. What stands out is the European context: of the 15 countries worldwide rated "partly free," only Serbia and Hungary come from Europe. Turkey, with 31 points, is rated "not free," the only such designation on the continent. At the other end of the scale, Estonia tops the global ranking with 91 points, followed by Costa Rica and Taiwan, while China, Iran and Myanmar sit at the bottom with nine points apiece. The methodology behind these figures measures three distinct dimensions - obstacles to access, limits on content, and violations of user rights - meaning a country's score reflects not just whether people can get online, but what they can say and do once they are there, and what consequences they face for it.
Protests, Digital Tools, and State Response
Freedom House specifically names Serbia among countries where citizens relied on digital platforms to organize mass protests that became turning points for domestic politics, placing it alongside India, Iran, Hungary, Kenya and Cuba in this respect. The report references the student-led demonstrations that followed the collapse of a canopy at a railway station in 2024, which killed 16 people and triggered sustained protests against the government. According to the findings, authorities responded with harsh suppression, targeting activity that had, in many cases, been coordinated through digital channels. This is not a new trajectory for Serbia: the 2025 edition of the same report had already moved the country from "free" to "partly free," citing the detention of people who expressed support for the protests online. The latest figures suggest that decline has not reversed, even if it has not worsened sharply either.
Surveillance, Spyware, and the Broader Pattern
The companion "Freedom in the World 2026" report gives Serbia 53 points, a three-point drop attributed to retaliation against university professors who joined the protests and to excessive use of force by police. It also cites findings from Amnesty International alleging that police and security services deployed spyware against journalists and activists - a pattern consistent with what Freedom House describes as a broader global trend of authoritarian-leaning governments exploiting internet-content laws and artificial-intelligence regulation to narrow space for free expression. Spyware of this kind typically allows remote access to a device's messages, location data and microphone without the owner's knowledge, turning a phone into a surveillance tool against its own user. Its use against journalists is particularly consequential because it can expose sources and undermine the confidentiality that investigative reporting depends on.
Why the Ranking Matters Now
These assessments arrive at a moment when digital channels carry real weight in Serbian public life, particularly for independent media and opposition voices ahead of elections, where traditional broadcast space is often constrained. The fact that only Turkey scores worse in Europe carries implications beyond reputation: media freedom and freedom of expression are formal benchmarks in Serbia's European Union accession process, meaning this ranking could feed directly into negotiation assessments. Freedom House's conclusions represent the organization's own methodology and judgment, and the Serbian government has previously disputed similar findings. Still, the broader pattern - stagnant scores, documented surveillance allegations, and a sixteenth straight year of global decline - suggests a trend that will be difficult to reverse without concrete policy change.