4. Findings
4. Findings
4.1 Findings overview
This chapter synthesizes the indicative findings from multistakeholder research on GBVO in Syria. Data collected
from focus group discussions, key informant interviews
(media, legal, policy, civil society), and in-depth interviews
with survivors and journalists reveal that GBVO is not a
series of isolated incidents but a normalized, systemic
mechanism of social control. It operates within and reinforces existing gender hierarchies, restricts civic participation, and thrives in an ecosystem of technological affordance, legal impunity, and social tolerance.
While survivors’ accounts reveal the lived consequences
of online violence, KIIs and FGDs situate these experiences within broader structures of power, including media
practices, platform governance, social norms, and legal
gaps. Together, the data shows that GBVO functions not
only as harassment but as a mechanism of silence and
exclusion that shapes who can participate safely in public
and digital life.
While individuals of different genders experience online
harassment, the findings show that gender fundamentally
shapes the form, intent, perceived risk, and consequences
of online violence. Women are disproportionately targeted
through sexualized abuse, moral judgment, and threats
linked to reputation and family, whereas men more often
experience online violence framed as political or professional hostility. These differences are evident across forms
of abuse, platforms used, social narratives, coping strategies, and impacts.
Importantly, GBVO is not experienced only at the individual level. The findings indicate that online violence
has collective implications for media freedom, civic
participation, and public discourse, contributing to the
exclusion of women’s voices and reinforcing existing
power inequalities.
The predictability and normalization of abuse across
survivor accounts, professional observations, and collective discussions suggest that online violence has become
embedded in everyday digital interactions, particularly
for women with public visibility. This normalization lowers
expectations of protection, discourages reporting, and
shifts responsibility from perpetrators and institutions to
individuals.
The data also demonstrates that GBVO functions simultaneously at multiple levels:
– Individual: psychological harm and self-censorship
– Institutional: lack of protection and accountability
– Societal: exclusion of women’s voices from public
discourse
These levels reinforce one another, creating a cycle in which
violence leads to withdrawal; withdrawal reduces visibility
of harm, and reduced visibility perpetuates impunity.
Gender emerges not simply as a variable,
but as a structuring force that shapes
how violence is enacted, interpreted, and
responded to.
Gender emerges not simply as a variable, but as a structuring force that shapes how violence is enacted, interpreted,
and responded to. The differential experiences of women
and men illustrate that GBVO is not gender-neutral online
harm, but a mechanism that reproduces offline gender
hierarchies in digital spaces. This has direct implications
for media freedom and civic participation, positioning
GBVO as a governance and rights issue rather than solely
a safety concern.
29