By Marta Konrad, WAVE Intern 2025
Introduction
Understanding technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV)* requires us to move beyond viewing “technology” and “society” as distinct spheres. Both terms are complex and interdependent, rather than separate entities. Framing technology as something that acts on society from the outside risks obscuring the fact that it is a human creation, embedded in and shaped by social values, interests, and power relations. As Manuel Castells emphasises, “technology does not determine society: it is society. Society shapes technology according to the needs, values, and interests of people who use the technology.“
This perspective is essential for examining how digital technologies reproduce existing social hierarchies. While the internet has enabled feminist mobilisation, education, and community-building, it has also become a powerful site of gendered violence.
This article explores the nature of TFGBV as an extension of systemic gender inequality, examines the legal and institutional responses across Europe, and highlights feminist resistance through a case study of Osnažene, a grassroots organisation in Serbia.
Gendered Technologies and Digital Violence
While information and communication technologies (ICTS) have opened possibilities for education, advocacy, economic empowerment and amplifying women’s voices – as seen in movements like #MeToo and #NiUnaMenos, they have also exposed women, girls and marginalised communities to new forms of violence. Harassment, cyberstalking, doxxing, impersonation, disinformation, sexualized deepfakes, threats of rape and surveillance are among the many ways digital platforms are weaponised to silence and marginalise women.
Technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV) is defined as “any act that is committed, assisted, aggravated or amplified by the use of ICTs or other digital tools, that results in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological, social, political or economic harm, or other infringements of rights and freedoms”. Survivors report anxiety, PTSD, depression, and even suicidal ideation. Many self-censor or withdraw from digital spaces, undermining their right to participate in public life.
Globally, the scale of the problem is staggering. Two in three women have experienced TFGBV, and 85% have witnessed violence against another woman online. In Europe and North America, over 70% of women report being exposed to online gender-based violence.
Yet institutional responses lag behind. Platforms act slowly, if at all, and policy change seems inconsistent. Feminist civil society groups have stepped in to build support networks and advocate for structural change. The fight against TFGBV is about more than digital safety. It is about reclaiming the right to visibility and participation.
Institutional Gaps and Legal Frameworks
Despite growing public awareness and civil society mobilisation, legal and institutional protections against TFGBV in Europe are still fragmented and inconsistent. While some progress has been made, particularly at the EU level, challenges persist at the intersection of platform regulation, international law and survivor-centred access to justice.
The European Union’s Directive (EU) 2024/1385 on combating violence against women represents a major step toward harmonised definitions and legal responses. It obliges Member States to criminalise non-consensual sharing of intimate images (including deepfakes), cyberstalking and cyberharassment and to provide accessible reporting channels, helplines and specialist support services for victims. Although Member States have until 14 June 2027 to transpose the Directive and an EU-level evaluation is only scheduled for 2032, delays in transposition and weak enforcement in some countries risk leaving survivors insufficiently protected in the meantime.
The Directive builds on earlier instruments such as the 2000 e-Commerce Directive, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Under Article 28b AVMSD, video-sharing platforms are required to take appropriate measures to protect minors and the general public from illegal content, including by establishing user-friendly mechanisms for users to report or flag such content. However, survivor-centred research shows that the current systems place a disproportionate burden on victims, who “must report each individual piece of content in turn, which is both time-consuming and re-traumatising”, often waiting weeks for platforms to act, while harmful content remains online. Similarly, GDPR’s Article 17 (“right to be forgotten”) can help remove harmful content, but its application to gendered abuse seems to remain limited in practice.
Internationally, various legal and soft law instruments attempt to address online violence. For instance, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) emphasises the importance of free expression but allows for speech restrictions in the protection of others’ rights (Articles 19 and 20).
Despite these principles, there remains no binding global framework for regulating intermediary liability in the context of gender-based digital harms. Instruments like the Manila Principles reinforce the idea that intermediaries should not be held liable for third-party content, which in turn allows platforms to deflect responsibility. Additionally, the Council of Europe’s Budapest Convention on Cybercrime and the Lanzarote Convention on child protection make no specific mention of gender-based digital violence. The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention), while groundbreaking for recognising violence against women as a human rights violation, does not explicitly address online forms of abuse. However, jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights has begun to evolve. In the 2021 case Volodina v. Russia (No. 2), the Court acknowledged that states have a positive obligation to prevent and respond to online violence against women. UN treaty bodies are also moving in this direction. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) recognised the significance of online harms in General Recommendation No. 33 (2015) and clarified their applicability to technology-mediated spaces in General Recommendation No. 35 (2017).
Meanwhile, social media platforms continue to operate with opaque, inconsistent and often ineffective moderation policies. Terms of service vary widely across platforms like TikTok, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), Reddit and Telegram. While some allow users to report non-consensual sexual imagery, options are often hidden under vague categories or lack specificity. Survivors must navigate complex reporting processes with no guarantee of content removal.
In summary, legal frameworks at both the national and international levels often fail to address the full scope and gendered nature of TFGBV. Feminist activists and organisations are therefore not only resisting violence, they are also building the frameworks that states and companies have yet to provide. This is particularly evident in countries outside the EU, such as Serbia, where grassroots efforts have become essential in the face of institutional inaction – which will be explored further below.
Osnažene’s Feminist Response to TFGBV
The information presented in this case study is based on a personal interview conducted with Osnažene activists in Belgrade in summer 2025.
Within the broader context of digital gender-based violence, Osnažene, a feminist organisation based in Belgrade, offers a telling example of local grassroots resistance connected to transnational feminist struggles. Osnažene emerged from informal networks of young feminists seeking to respond to growing threats in online spaces, and over time has become a structured entity that combines legal advocacy, survivor support and digital intervention. As one activist described, the group “just organically grew into this,” driven by necessity and by women reaching out for help.
Osnažene’s work centres on technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV), particularly the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, digital stalking and abuse through platforms like Telegram. In one instance, they successfully pressured Telegram to remove a group that shared abusive content by directly contacting the platform, an action that led to broader campaigns and public awareness efforts. These actions evolved into systematic monitoring, reporting, and documenting of such channels, which were sometimes linked to criminal activity, including child sexual abuse material.
Alongside this digital intervention, Osnažene has provided free legal and psychological support to survivors. Initially informal, this work has grown into an organised system of survivor assistance. “We managed to grow the organisation… we offer free legal and psychological support. Then we can see how we help victims,” one activist noted. This support includes helping victims collect evidence, file police reports and navigate court procedures. In at least one case, their assistance helped a woman obtain a restraining order and pursue legal action against an abusive ex-partner.
However, their activism comes at a high personal and organisational cost. The organisation and its members face ongoing backlash, both online and offline, including misogynistic trolling, public discrediting, and threats of violence. One member reflected on this hostile climate, saying, “We were called witches, Western puppets… you name it,” highlighting the persistent hostility they encounter. This environment also exerts emotional strain, with activists describing their work as “exhausting” and noting the “burnout and fatigue that come from constantly being exposed to trauma and threats”.
Osnažene has played a key role in raising awareness of digital violence issues at the national level. Their work not only contributed to shaping public debate and draft legislation aimed at criminalising revenge porn but also catalysed a broader cultural shift in how digital violence is understood across sectors. As one activist explained, “We have seen that a lot of other organisations, not just feminist organisations, but just organisations, are starting to tackle the issue of digital safety and digital violence, whether it’s gender-based violence or digital violence altogether.” Their public exposure of abuse networks – such as Telegram groups circulating non-consensual images – sparked greater digital caution and self-reflection: “Ever since we’ve published about Telegram, we’ve seen that a lot of other organisations… are starting to really be careful and think twice about what they are posting on the Internet and how they’re acting.”
What makes Osnažene’s case particularly relevant to the broader conversation on TFGBV is how it illustrates both the failures of institutional responses and the capacity of grassroots feminist networks to fill that void. While European and international legal frameworks evolve gradually, Osnažene’s everyday interventions, such as removing Telegram groups, accompanying survivors to court and building peer-support systems, demonstrate what feminist digital justice looks like in practice. In their words, the work is challenging but “necessary,” motivated by the belief that “technology can be a tool for violence, but it can also be reclaimed”.
Conclusion: Strengthening Responses to Digital Gender-Based Violence
Technology-facilitated gender-based violence reflects broader social patterns of inequality and control. As digital spaces increasingly shape public life, the harms women and marginalised groups face online require urgent and coordinated responses. While the adoption of new legal instruments, such as the EU’s 2024/1385 Directive, marks progress, implementation gaps and uneven enforcement continue to leave many survivors without adequate support or recourse.
In this context, the work of grassroots organisations like Osnažene is particularly important. Their ability to raise awareness, offer legal and psychological assistance and intervene directly in harmful online environments illustrates how civil society can respond effectively, even when institutional mechanisms are slow or insufficient. Their experiences also highlight the need for stronger collaboration between governments, technology companies and feminist movements.
Efforts to address TFGBV must go beyond individual interventions or reactive policy changes. A more comprehensive approach would involve clearer accountability from digital platforms, survivor-centred legal reforms and greater investment in prevention and education. Feminist organisations have long been doing this work on the ground. Their insights and experiences should inform broader strategies for making online spaces safer and more equitable for all users. Yet the cost of this work is high – emotionally, financially, and politically. As this case shows, grassroots organisations often provide essential services without adequate institutional backing. If states and platforms rely on feminist actors to fill systemic gaps, they must also commit to supporting them with sustainable funding, protection and collaboration.
*While WAVE generally uses the term “technology-facilitated violence against women and girls” (TFVAWG), this article uses “technology-facilitated gender-based violence” (TFGBV), in line with the terminology preferred by Osnažene. The terms are closely related and both refer to forms of violence committed, assisted, or amplified through digital technologies, often targeting women, girls, and gender-diverse individuals. The terminology used in legal frameworks such as the EU Directive may differ, but generally addresses overlapping forms of harm.
–
Author Bio:
Marta holds a Bachelor’s degree in International Relations from Germany and is currently completing a Master’s in European Studies in Poland, focusing on civil society, gender and dynamics of social movements. Her thesis examines feminist grassroots movements in Serbia. She has experience in international research on labour migration, volunteered as a researcher at the European Centre for Homicide and Violent Crime Research, and worked as Head of Marketing at a research institute in Poland. Marta has also engaged with youth-based NGOs in Zagreb and volunteered with Amnesty International and Zonta. She speaks German, Polish, English, and Spanish fluently and is learning Serbian.
She is particularly interested in intersectional feminism and in fostering transnational knowledge exchange within feminist and civil society networks and is working to support WAVE within these interests.
References
von Schéele , F. and Strijbos, S. (2014) Social Change in Our Technology-Based World Proceedings of the 19th Annual Working Conference of the IIDE 6 – 9 May 2014. Edited by M. Rathbone. Available at: https://nova.org.za/assets/proceedings-iide-awc-2014—complete.pdf
Castells, M. (no date) Chapter 1 – The Network Society: From Knowledge to policy. Available at: https://archive.transatlanticrelations.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/Chapter-1.pdf
Lamensch, M. (2022) Women activists lead the struggle against online gender-based violence worldwide – Centre for International Governance Innovation, CIGI. Available at: https://www.cigionline.org/articles/women-activists-lead-the-struggle-against-online-gender-based-violence-worldwide/
UN Women and World Health Organization, “Technology-facilitated Violence against Women: Taking stock of evidence and data collection”, 2023
UNRIC (2023) How technology-facilitated gender-based violence impacts women and girls, United Nations Regional Centre for Western Europe. Available at: https://unric.org/en/how-technology-facilitated-gender-based-violence-impacts-women-and-girls/
UNFPA (2024) An infographic guide to technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV), United Nations Population Fund. Available at: https://www.unfpa.org/publications/infographic-guide-technology-facilitated-gender-based-violence-tfgbv
Official Journal of the European Union (2024) Directive – EU – 2024/1385 – en – EUR-lex, EU. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1385/oj/eng
(2024) info document from the european union EU laws and initiatives to combat violence against women and international child abduction. Available at: https://assets.hcch.net/docs/ade6fa5c-fdc2-4337-ab1a-43c76d089de1.pdf
(2022) Mapping on video-sharing platforms – 2022 update. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/mapping-on-video-sharing-platforms-2022-update-lt/1680b00191
(No date) Written evidence submitted by Refuge Refuge evidence: Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Sub-Committee on Online Harms and Disinformation: inquiry into online safety and online harms. Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/38623/pdf/
Art. 17 GDPR – right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’) (2017) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Available at: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (no date) OHCHR. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
Rossettini, M.(2025) Breaking the web of abuse: The realm of technology-facilitated gender-based violence, european student think tank. Available at: https://esthinktank.com/2025/03/07/breaking-the-web-of-abuse-the-realm-of-technology-facilitated-gender-based-violence/
Guney, G. (2022) The Istanbul Convention: A Missed Opportunity in mainstreaming cyberviolence against women in Human Rights Law?, EJIL:Talk! Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-istanbul-convention-a-missed-opportunity-in-mainstreaming-cyberviolence-against-women-in-human-rights-law/
Voorhoof, D. (2021) European Court of Human Rights: Volodina v. Russia (no. 2), IRIS Merlin. Available at: https://merlin.obs.coe.int/article/9324
European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), The power of digital platforms in standing up for the safety of women and girls online (EIGE Director’s Blog, 2023). Available at: The power of digital platforms in standing up for the safety of women and girls online | European Institute for Gender Equality
Why Twitter is a toxic place for women (2022) Amnesty International. Available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2018/03/online-violence-against-women-chapter-1-1/
Osnažene is a feminist organization based in Belgrade, Serbia, working to combat technology-facilitated gender-based violence through legal support, digital advocacy, and survivor accompaniment. You can follow their work on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/osnazzene?igsh=MTFjc3pva20xZHcwcA==
