Platform tools and search systems had
limitations: Changes to how platforms
organise and display content, as well as
automatic filters, may have affected what
INSM was able to find and collect.
INSM used several different methods to collect data, keyword
searches, direct monitoring of specific pages, and the Meta
Content Library. Using multiple methods helped reduce the
risk of missing important content.
It was often difficult to identify who was
behind harmful content: Many accounts
use fake names, copy other people’s
identities, or are created using AI. This
made it hard to connect abusive content
to specific individuals or organised
groups.
Rather than trying to identify individuals, INSM focused on
patterns of behaviour and types of content. This approach is
safer for the research team and still allows the report to show
how OGBV is organised and carried out.
Safety and ethical rules limited what data
could be collected: To protect both
victims and researchers, INSM did not
directly contact some accounts or collect
personal information about the people
involved.
INSM followed its own ethical guidelines and international
standards for digital research. All victim information was kept
anonymous, and overall trends and patterns were used rather
than individual-level details.
The report only covers the 2025 election
period: INSM’s monitoring focused on a
specific window of time around the
elections. Trends that existed before or
developed after this period including
long-term effects on women’s political
careers are not covered.
The findings are placed in the context of INSM’s previous work
monitoring Iraqi elections, which allows for comparison over
time. The report’s recommendations are designed to inform
future monitoring efforts and ongoing advocacy.
Some pages used provocative content to
attract attention, which inflated the
volume of hate comments: Certain pages
deliberately posted controversial content
about women candidates to get more
reactions. This may make the level of
abuse appear higher than it would be in
normal everyday discussions.
INSM examined the data both in terms of volume and in terms
of content and context. This helped separate genuine hostility
from reactions driven by provocative posting, giving a more
accurate picture of the situation.
78