| Country | Court orders | Requests from government agencies or law enforcement | Number of sites specified | Percentage of requests where content was removed due to a violation of our policies | Percentage of requests where content was removed solely in response to the demand |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | 0 | 3 | 2 | 67% | 33% |
| France | 0 | 1 | 1 | 100% | 0% |
| Germany | 0 | 13 | 9 | 15% | 8% |
| India | 1 | 4 | 5 | 60% | 0% |
| Kenya | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0% | 0% |
| Malaysia | 0 | 4 | 3 | 25% | 0% |
| Pakistan | 0 | 1 | 1 | 100% | 0% |
| Russia | 0 | 95 | 74 | 37% | 31% |
| Turkey | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0% | 0% |
| United Kingdom | 0 | 1 | 1 | 100% | 0% |
| United States | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0% | 0% |
| Total | 2 | 128 | 100 | 35% | 24% |
For demands that come from Russia and Turkey, we will generally geoblock the specific content or site(s) at issue, so that WordPress.com remains otherwise accessible in the country. However, in cases of particularly egregious censorship, we have pushed back and do push back where possible. You can read a bit more about our approach to those kinds of takedown demands here.
| Country | Total | Calls to violence | Harm to minors (CSAM) | Hateful conduct | Illegal products | Not hosted | Phishing | Sexually explict | Sites specified | Removed due to demand | Removed for violation of policy | Court orders |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Germany | 13 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 10 | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| France | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| Total | 14 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 11 | 0% | 0% | 0 |
Notes
- With regards to Takedown Demands Received from EU Member States, the data provided is according to the requirements of the DSA, Article 15, “Transparency reporting obligations for providers of intermediary services.”
- The information provided is for the total number of takedown requests per country, broken down by type of reported content at issue.
- The table also provides the percentage of the total amount of orders where we complied and the percentage of orders resulted in action taken due to a violation of our guidelines.
- We are also reporting the median time (in hours) that it took to confirm receipt and take action on reported content.
Recent Examples
Here are some recent examples of takedown demands we received that did not result in the removal of content:
United States
- We received a takedown notice from the CISA Service Desk, requesting that we remove a site for “possible malicious activity.” The site had also previously been reported to us by a non-governmental “threat management platform,” despite the issue being effectively a trademark dispute, and not any sort of cybersecurity threat.
Kenya
- The National KE-CIRT/CC sent us five takedown demands about two articles on the same site, which examines purported fraud and corruption in the country. The takedown notices requested removal of the content due to “harassment” and “defamation” of two Kenyan businessmen, “contrary to the Republic of Kenya’s Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act.”
Transparency Report 