Technology was supposed to give us freedom—to help us communicate without boundaries, create, and build communities. But what once promised a safe space for self-expression sometimes becomes an instrument of control and violence.
“His phone knew everything about her, even when she was silent” – stories like this are becoming more and more common, and they all have one thing in common: technology is not only a means of communication, but also an instrument of violence. This phenomenon even has an established name: technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV). That is, violence in which digital tools are used to control, humiliate, or intimidate a person. And in fact, it is closer than it seems.
What is TFGBV and why is it more than just cyberbullying?
TFGBV is any form of violence in which technology becomes a tool for pressure or harm. This can include hacking accounts, sharing personal photos without consent, cyberstalking, doxing, or even installing spyware on a phone.
It is important to understand that TFGBV is not just about the internet or toxic online behavior. It is a continuation of old forms of violence that have migrated to the digital space. Whereas previously the abuser controlled the victim at home, today they do so through a screen, gaining access to messages, location, or contacts. The violence has simply changed its tools, but not its essence.
Such actions often have the same goal as offline violence – to silence a person, make them feel guilty or afraid, and deprive them of their autonomy. And although it seems that “it’s just the internet,” the consequences are real: emotional exhaustion, isolation, job loss, and reputation destruction.
Women and girls are most often affected by digital violence, particularly members of the LGBTIQ+ community, journalists, human rights defenders, and activists. In other words, those who have a voice in the public sphere or strive for independence become targets because their visibility challenges established notions of “a woman’s place.”
Teenagers are a particularly vulnerable group. For them, the internet is the main platform for communication, but it is also where they most often experience cyberbullying, photo leaks, or humiliation in chat rooms. Digital violence creates a false impression among young people that the boundaries of privacy are arbitrary and that humiliation is a “joke.”
And although TFGBV occurs online, it cannot be reduced to a question of “cybersecurity.” It is not just about passwords or privacy settings. It is about human rights violations—the right to dignity, safety, privacy, and freedom of expression.
Such manifestations of violence often remain invisible or underestimated. The police may advise the complainant to delete her profile and ignore what is happening online, but for the victim, this means losing her own voice. TFGBV requires not silence, but a systematic response – both at the level of society and the state.
The Ukrainian context: how it is happening “here and now”
TFGBV is most often hidden in everyday digital practices, but its consequences are no less tangible than offline. Halyna Fedkovich, chief lawyer at the Women’s Perspectives Center, a non-governmental organization, spoke about typical cases and gaps in Ukrainian legislation.
According to her, the organization works mainly with cases of domestic violence, which is increasingly occurring through information and communication technologies. Sometimes it looks like endless messages in messengers — a hundred or even five hundred a day. Some of them may be neutral, some may contain insults or threats, but the sheer number often throws people off balance. In such situations, as the expert notes, abusers often claim that they are not doing anything offensive, ignoring the fact that control and intrusive presence are also forms of psychological violence.
One example is when partners gain access to women’s correspondence in real time. Another common situation is surveillance through technical devices. The lawyer recalls cases where clients found hidden cameras in their homes, including ones disguised as children’s toys. Sometimes women doubted their own adequacy because the abuser commented on their private conversations or behavior as if he were present. In reality, he was receiving information from cameras or motion trackers. “GPS beacons,” small trackers, or clone apps that give full access to a phone are all used quite often, according to Fedkovych.
Such technologies even allow for monitoring of movement. Fedkovych recalls a situation where her client went on vacation with her children, and her ex-husband, who had previously worked as a police officer, appeared on the beach just a few minutes after her arrival—he had tracked her location via her phone. After the woman reset her device to factory settings and created a new account, the abuser lost control and began to call and text obsessively, demanding to know where she and the children were.
The lawyer also talked about more aggressive forms of digital violence: threats in messengers, stalking, mass sending of sexual images, and public humiliation on social media. One case involved a man posting a photo of his ex-wife in a swimsuit with the caption “I provide sexual services for 50 hryvnia.” Another involved a client receiving videos and messages of a sexual nature, which formally fall under the article on sexual harassment, but the punishment for this remains symbolic.
Separately, Fedkovych emphasized the emergence of deepfakes and the possibility of creating artificial intimate images in a matter of seconds. According to her, technology is developing faster than the state’s response, and Ukrainian legislation does not cover a significant portion of these cases.
“Right now, it looks like this: let’s find some norm that we can tie this to. But in criminal law, this logic doesn’t work because many new forms of violence simply don’t have a definition,” the lawyer explained.
She emphasized that the European directive requires the state to ensure the rapid removal of illegal content—within 24 hours—and to create clear mechanisms for online appeals. However, such solutions are not yet available in Ukraine, and the question of “what to do about it?” remains open.
How to prevent and stop it?
TFGBV does not leave bruises, but it wounds deeply. However, even in the digital space, it is possible to protect yourself and support others.
The first step is basic digital hygiene. It is important to regularly update passwords, use two-factor authentication, be careful when sharing personal photos and data, and check app permissions. In relationships, you should not share your passwords or access to cameras and geolocation — trust does not mean control.
The second step is not to deal with the problem alone. There are organizations in Ukraine that help victims of violence, including violence committed with the help of technology. These include La Strada-Ukraine (hotline 116 123) and the Association of Women Lawyers “JurFem,” as well as legal aid centers. Specialists provide assistance with digital security, documenting evidence, and psychological support.
It is important to remember that the responsibility always lies with the perpetrator, not with the person whose privacy has been violated. Advice such as “you shouldn’t have sent it” only reinforces stigma and silence.
Most importantly, safety begins with a culture of solidarity. When friends do not forward leaked photos, journalists do not turn tragedies into sensational stories, and social media users do not justify the actions of stalkers, the digital space becomes a little safer for everyone. Technology itself is neither good nor evil—it all depends on who uses it and why.
Author: Yana Radchenko