4. Findings
This aligns with journalist IDIs describing a wider context
of an “unregulated virtual space” and the absence of
restrictions or guidelines that would prevent abusive
dynamics from taking hold. In practice, interviewees
described amplification through public comment sections
and high-traffic pages where defamation, humiliation, and
gendered insults remain visible long enough to spread and
normalize. Journalists also referred to the need to remove
harmful pages and content, including calls to delete
unofficial pages and permanently delete obscene comments, reflecting that in many cases the harmful content is
not only produced, but also left standing long enough to
shape public perception and intensify reputational harm.
GBVO is not a series of isolated incidents
but a normalized, systemic mechanism of
social control.
At the same time, participants also described ways media
can act as a counterweight, not only by improving content
and moderation, but by using institutional influence to
reduce harm. Journalist IDIs provided examples of counter
actions such as pressuring platforms to delete pages that
contain defamation, blackmail, or humiliation, and sharing
research with decision-makers to improve monitoring and
reduction of defamation; some also referenced the need
to reactivate cybercrime-related measures administratively as part of deterrence efforts. In addition, KIIs
described initiatives that aim to build resilience and
professional safety, including projects that train women
journalists in digital security and embed organizational
commitments such as gender quotas, as well as support
efforts that include containment and response strategies
for survivors. Importantly, respondents also noted limitations: some efforts were described as present but uneven
or episodic, suggesting that without sustained moderation
capacity and clear institutional policies, countering
remains partial.
4.8.2 Media as key leverage point
Participants’ accounts position media institutions as leverage points because they can act at multiple levels simultaneously: preventing harm inside their own spaces, influencing platform behavior, and shaping the broader discourse
that either normalizes or challenges GBVO. At the operational level, interviewees pointed to the need for clear internal measures and policies, including consistent moderation,
defined thresholds for removing abusive content, and proactive action against pages that circulate defamation and
blackmail. At the professional level, examples in the data
emphasize capacity-oriented approaches, such as digital
safety training for journalists, and institutional supports
that reduce individual exposure and strengthen collective
response. At the societal level, respondents stressed that
media framing can shift norms by treating GBVO as a rights
violation and a form of exclusion rather than “online drama,”
which in turn can reduce victim-blaming and increase the
perceived legitimacy of reporting and protection.
The expectation that abuse will follow
women’s visibility normalizes harm and
makes withdrawal appear rational, reinforcing GBVO as a gatekeeping mechanism that
regulates who can participate safely in public and digital life.
41