Understanding Help-Seeking and Help-Giving
on Social Media for Image-Based Sexual Abuse

IBSA exists on a continuum, occurring in diverse relational contexts, with distinct motivations, and rapidly evolving threats [62]. The types of IBSA that inform our investigation include:

1. 1.

   Sextortion: a perpetrator makes threats to distribute sexually explicit images of a person unless they comply with the perpetrator’s demands [23, 31, 42, 73].

2. 2.

   Nonconsensual synthetic explicit imagery (NCSEI): a perpetrator uses software (e.g., photo editing or generative AI tools) to create sexualized depictions of a person (e.g., “deepfakes,” “cheapfakes”) [30, 44, 58, 71, 100].

3. 3.

   Pressurized sexting (PS): a person experiences unwanted solicitation for explicit images (e.g., “coerced sexting”) [81, 89].

4. 4.

   Cyberflashing (CF): a person receives an unwanted explicit image [59].

5. 5.

   Nonconsensual explicit imagery (NCEI): a perpetrator uses explicit imagery for revenge or to enact control [62] (e.g., “revenge porn”); or otherwise nonconsensually creates, retains, or distributes explicit imagery (e.g., “upskirting,” “downblousing”) [7, 52].

6. 6.

   Recorded sexual assault (RSA): a perpetrator records or distributes imagery from a sexual assault [40].

Technology often plays a role in both the generation and distribution of IBSA. Outside of consensual sharing or nonconsensual recording, methods of obtainment include hacking [32], photoshopping [63], and using generative AI tools to create synthetic imagery [58, 95, 100]. Distribution channels used by perpetrators include—but are not limited to— websites [21, 39, 55, 94], social media platforms [32, 58, 85], and mobile apps [46, 60].

Harms from IBSA—as with other forms of sexualized violence—are not uniformly experienced, but are nonetheless serious and consequential [6, 10, 49, 83], carrying emotional, physical, financial, and social impacts [45]. When images are distributed, victim-survivors become visually recognizable to friends, family, co-workers, or others [45], and imagery is often shared with other personally identifiable information (e.g., names, social media handles, phone numbers, and/or addresses [20, 32, 91]). The often permanent nature of online material intensifies IBSA harms, as imagery can be repeatedly downloaded, saved, and shared, making “complete" removal challenging, or even impossible [5]. As IBSA often co-occurs with other forms of gender-based violence (e.g., intimate partner abuse, stalking, and sexual harassment) [60], harms may compound with other polyvictimizations.

The first step in our data processing pipeline was to identify Reddit posts and subreddits relevant to our research (Figure 1, ❶). Our Reddit dataset originates from a continuous Internet-wide crawl of public URLs in a way that respects robots.txt and other rules for crawlers. In order to reduce the search space for IBSA posts, we focused on 43 popular subreddits related to scams, advice, relationships, dating, and sex—including r/advice, r/askwomen, r/askmen, and r/sextortion—that we identified from an initial manual exploration (see Appendix A.1 for the full list). All of these subreddits had at least 1,000 members. In total, this dataset includes 5.7M English-language posts from 2.9M unique users (i.e., “original posters” on Reddit, posters in this work) published between April 1, 2020 and September 12, 2023.

We analyzed each Reddit post using a suite of LLMs and prompts to identify those likely to be about help-seeking for IBSA (Figure 1, ❷). While we initially explored a keyword-based search, the terminology and context proved too nuanced to capture without a prohibitive number of false positives to manually review. Instead, we queried Google Cloud’s lighter-weight Vertex AI text-bison LLM [35] with a prompt to identify posts generally discussing IBSA (Figure 2), then refined the search by repeating the prompt with a more accurate (but expensive) text-unicorn LLM [35].

We validated this approach using a manually curated test set of 80 posts that discussed IBSA (generated from our initial manual exploration and when exploring the feasibility of keyword matching), and 197 non-IBSA posts. Our chained prompt correctly identified 79 of the 80 IBSA posts (98.8% recall) and 194 of the 197 non-IBSA posts (98.4% specificity). While the final dataset of posts we use is manually validated to remove all errors, this high degree of recall and specificity gave us confidence that we did not incorrectly omit some IBSA concepts from our study, while at the same time reducing the toil of manual validation. When applied at scale, our filtering identified 113K Reddit posts likely discussing IBSA—2% of posts on the subreddits we analyzed.

To ensure that our study captured distinct experiences in the continuum of IBSA, we queried text-unicorn to categorize each post by the type(s) of IBSA involved in order to support stratified sampling (Figure 1, ❸). We derived these types—listed in Table 1—based on our preliminary analysis of prior literature (Sections 2.1 & 3.2). We found that the LLM struggled with some concepts more than others. For example, sextortion was easy for the LLM to categorize, while recorded sexual assault was more error prone (and also more rare). To counteract this and account for posts that discuss multiple types of IBSA, we also created (more computationally expensive) per-type prompts with multi-stage reasoning to distinguish overlapping concepts (e.g., financial and nonfinancial sextortion). See Appendix A.2 for the general categorization and specialized prompts. We rely on manual review to validate these labels, discussed next. Given the potential for error with automated categorization (absent manual review), we avoid providing a relative breakdown of the types of IBSA at-scale, and focus only on our stratified sample.

During validation, we selected from the outputs of each categorization prompt and manually vetted the labels (Figure 1, ❹). Here, we corrected for any missed or erroneous labels and discarded any posts that were not related to help-seeking for IBSA. We also removed posts where the victim-survivor appeared to be under the age of 18.³³3Some posts may originate from minors, but we cannot confirm. The advice we analyzed appeared targeted towards adults. The nuances of help-seeking and giving are fundamentally different for child sexual abuse (e.g., lack of agency, mandatory reporting) and thus beyond the scope of this work. We repeated this until we achieved a minimum of 40 posts for each of the seven types of IBSA,⁴⁴4We sampled independently per IBSA type. Some posts discussed multiple IBSA types, which is why there are more than 40 posts for some types. resulting in a final dataset of 261 posts. We sampled 40 posts per IBSA type to achieve meaning sufficiency [14], balanced with reasonable researcher effort. Some posts involved multiple types of IBSA, thus requiring we label fewer than 280 posts to meet our minimum sample size. Each post in our sample on average contained 285 words (min: 24, max: 2,363).

For each post, we re-crawled the live site for the current state of discussion (i.e., all threads) on December 11, 2023. This yielded 2,159 threads consisting of 4,225 individual comments from 2,298 unique accounts. To allow for a robust qualitative analysis, we filtered this set down to the top three upvoted threads per post, and then randomly sampled 160 of these popular threads. We use posts to understand the types of IBSA for which people were seeking help and what help they were seeking, and threads to understand what help they received. We summarize our qualitative dataset in Table 1.

As we developed our research questions, we conducted an initial analysis of IBSA literature and preliminary scan of IBSA help-seeking posts on Reddit – to summarize and identify potential codes [22] relevant to help-seeking needs, help-giving behaviors, and other characteristics of the data that applied to our research questions. Existing literature on IBSA types and risk factors informed our initial deductive codes; codes describing IBSA help-seeking needs and help-giving behaviors were developed inductively, as these are more emergent areas in the literature.

Next, one researcher familiarized themselves with the raw data, cumulatively reading thousands of Reddit posts about IBSA during the development of our data processing pipeline (Figure 1). This researcher then applied the initial codes to a random set of 100 posts stratified across IBSA types and then generated new codes from the raw data to identify more useful attributes of the data.

Next we developed the codebook, finalizing labels, definitions, and exclusions. All members of the research team reviewed the codebook; we took note of initial disagreements to iteratively update our codebook to account for these nuances. We segmented our codebook into three sections. The first section focused on the nature of the IBSA: the type of IBSA, the platforms involved, details about the perpetrator and victim-survivor, the origin of the IBSA imagery, and method of distribution. The second section focused on help-seeking: when help-seeking occurred, strategies already attempted, and what help was sought. The third section focused on help-giving: the type of support or advice offered and the interactivity of help-giving. See Appendix A.3 for details on individual codes and definitions.

Four coders applied the codebook to our posts dataset and three applied the codebook to our threads dataset, with two independently coding each post or thread. For reliability, we used consensus coding [18] for consistent judgment [13]. All coders iteratively discussed disagreements via meetings or online chat. Between discussions, one coder reviewed remaining disagreements, resolved obvious or already-discussed issues, and noted where discussion was still needed. We chose to ensure coding reliability through consensus coding and discussion because our codes were not mutually exclusive and the data were nuanced.

Lastly, we iteratively collated various codes, reviewed the data and memos, and discussed themes. Alongside our thematic analysis, we offer descriptive statistics. We report counts in the results with the notation X of Y, where Y is the total number of posts, threads, or people about which that code is specified, that is, excluding unspecified. In sections where Y is constant, only X is reported for brevity.

Because IBSA can be a form of gender-based violence, we coded gendered terminology about the victim-survivor(s) and perpetrator(s) when specified.⁵⁵5Gender was unspecified for 26% of perpetrators and 42% of victim-survivors. One challenge inherent in analyzing social media data is that posts do not reliably or consistently provide gender disclosures. We inferred gender in five ways: Reddit conventions to self-identify (e.g., “21F” meaning a 21-year-old female), gendered nouns (e.g., woman, boyfriend, girl), gendered pronouns (e.g., she, he), body parts (e.g., dick pic, breasts), or other (e.g., posting to a gendered subreddit, asking for opinions of “other women”). We most often inferred victim-survivor and perpetrator gender through gendered nouns (24%; 60%) or self-identifications (56%; 23%), but also inferred based on solely pronouns (8%; 17%) and body parts (26%; 1%). To avoid piecemeal reporting, we collapsed sex and gender, such that “man” includes all masculine terms, including gendered nouns and pronouns, and “woman” likewise includes all feminine terms. These codes should be interpreted as researcher inferences based on gendered terms in Reddit’s broadly cisheteronormative context, which may or may not align with the gender identities of the individuals involved.

To initiate contact for financial sextortion, a perpetrator typically connected with a victim-survivor via a dating or social media app before moving to direct messaging or a communication app, engaging in a conversation with the victim-survivor within minutes to days. The perpetrator then coercively obtained, made claims about, or created explicit images following one or a combination of the following methods: they sent (inauthentic) explicit images to encourage the victim-survivor to reciprocate; they claimed to have an explicit image of the victim-survivor (with or without evidence); and/or they created an explicit image (e.g., by attaching the victim-survivor’s face—such as taken from a profile picture—to someone else’s body; such synthetic images are further discussed in Section 4.3).

Once the perpetrator had established or asserted that they had an explicit image, they issued a threat: either the victim-survivor had to pay or the explicit image would be distributed (e.g., “Send me money or I’ll share your nudes”). Payment demands varied, but were typically the local equivalent of $100–1500 USD (specified in 28 of 50 posts; 56%).

Of the 50 posts, 48 identified the perpetrator as a stranger (Table 2). Of the 28 posts that specified the perpetrator’s gender, 21 were believed⁷⁷7Some posters, in line with prior work [31], acknowledged that perpetrators may be using this gender identity as a false persona. to be women (Table 3). Of the 27 posts that specified the victim-survivor’s gender, 26 were men (Table 4).

Perpetrators tried to exploit the victim-survivor’s fear of embarrassment. Posters often emphasized the threatened scale of distribution: “I’ll send these masturbation videos to everyone you know, including your friends, colleagues, and relatives.” Victim-survivors often appeared to be in a state of panic when they posted, and they sometimes partially blamed themselves, claiming that they “messed up” or “feel so stupid.”

Posters sought help to determine if the threat was credible, prepare for what to expect next, and ask for strategies to cope with their fear. When seeking help, victim-survivors often mentioned technical protections they had already taken, such as blocking the perpetrator, reporting the perpetrator to the platform, or bolstering their social media privacy and security settings. They then asked the community what else they could do.

Nonfinancial sextortion tended to be customized to the particular victim-survivor and their situation. Perpetrators—who were often intimate partners—used the threat of exposing an explicit image to demand new images and/or to exert emotional, physical, or sexual control over the victim-survivor: “he was obviously getting mad and eventually exploded and told me he’d send out my nude pics if I didn’t have sex with him.”

Nonfinancial sextortion was usually perpetrated by a current (10 of 38 specified; 26%) or former intimate partner (10; 26%) (Table 2).⁸⁸8We coded posts about sextortion that did not mention a demand for payment as NFS. Such posts where the perpetrator was a stranger resembled (and may have been) FS, so we omit them from discussion here. Victim-survivors often noted that the image the perpetrator threatened to expose was obtained with consent in a different context (8 of 43 specified), or nonconsensual secret recording (4). When specified, perpetrators tended to be men (20 of 30; 67%), victim-survivors women (13 of 22; 59%) (Tables 3 & 4).

Like financial sextortion, perpetrators of nonfinancial sextortion attempted to control victim-survivors with fear of embarrassment. However, when compared to financial sextortion, posts about nonfinancial sextortion tended to include a more pronounced tone of helplessness: “I feel suffocated with him and I don’t see any type of future with him, but he has the power to ruin my life.”

Victim-survivors expressed uncertainty about how to navigate their relationship with the perpetrator: “should I cave to his demands so he doesn’t dump me?” They also asked for help coping with the emotional trauma associated with this type of IBSA.

Posters explained that basic editing techniques were used to generate explicit images, using terms like “photoshopped” or “filters with my face.” In cases of financial sextortion, perpetrators often sent victim-survivors a “collage” of explicit images and other media—a list of the victim-survivor’s social media connections, screenshots of messages between the victim-survivor and perpetrator, or calls-to-action from the perpetrator to incriminate the victim-survivor (e.g., calling them a “pedophile”)—to scare the victim-survivor into paying.

In other cases, posters found or learned about explicit images on the perpetrator’s—usually the poster’s intimate partner’s—device, presumably for personal use such as the perpetrator’s sexual gratification or exploration. In these images, victim-survivors’ or other relations’ faces were superimposed into explicit images: “I recently found out [my intimate partner] had tons of pictures with my friends and family where their faces had been photoshopped onto sexually explicit photos to simulate porn scenes.”

The (suspected) use of generative AI to create nonconsensual synthetic explicit imagery was mentioned in 3 of 51 posts (6%). In those cases, victim-survivors found the imagery’s photorealism terrifying: “Someone used a nudifying app to make naked photos of me from my social media pictures. I’m terrified.”

The quality of the synthetic imagery was not a focus of posters; instead, they discussed the harm that even simple manipulations could create. In financial sextortion cases, victim-survivors shared that synthetic imagery might deceive family or peers: “The nudes are fake, but it’s not like my parents can tell that.” In other cases, posters expressed disgust because the synthetic imagery was nonconsensually created by people the poster knew, and the images portrayed people in sexually explicit ways that the poster found inappropriate or offensive. For example, one poster found synthetic images of a friends’ family member, which left the poster “in tears… I’m utterly disgusted and distraught by the situation.” Another poster discovered that their partner had been creating images of their friends and family for years, and despite knowing they were fake, viewed the creation of the images as a grave breach of trust: “The files… were created a few years ago and I cannot believe how blind I was. I trusted him and now I am broken.”

Posters sought help for how to deal with perpetrators (including asking for relationship advice) and to make sense of how they felt about the discovery of nonconsensual synthetic explicit imagery.

Pressurized sexting occurred primarily in relationships, that is, by current intimate partners of the victim-survivor (21 of 42 specified; 50%), or between strangers who were prospective partners via online dating or social media apps (12; 29%).

When pressurized sexting occurred in the early stages of a (potential) relationship, posters expressed feelings of being manipulated or “used for nudes”: “I can’t believe someone asks for nude pictures, and their only motivation in talking to me is trying to get nudes.”

When in established relationships, victim-survivors often attempted to resolve conflicts between what they were comfortable with and their intimate partners’ expectations. For example, some asked if pressurized sexting warranted ending a relationship: “My boyfriend asks for nudes and if I refuse he ignores me until I give in. Can someone tell me if we can fix this, or if I should just get therapy to help me break up with him?" This was especially true if the pressurized sexting was perceived as the sole problem in a relationship. “This guy is great except he asks me to send nudes… I don’t want to break up but I hate when he does this. What should I do?”

Most perpetrators were presumed to be men (40 of 43 specified; 93%); victim-survivors tended to be women (25 of 27 specified; 93%) (Tables 3 & 4).

Cyberflashing commonly occurred in the process of seeking romantic relationships online. Victim-survivors frequently discussed whether they were out-of-step with shifting norms around sending or receiving explicit images: “Can someone please explain why people send unsolicited nudes?” In some cases, cyberflashing occurred as part of pressurized sexting (Section 4.4), where a perpetrator would demand reciprocity after sending unwanted explicit images: “I told him I didn’t want any, but he sent dick pics anyways…he asked for a picture of my breasts but I said no cuz I never send naked pictures of myself.” The tone of these posts was often that of frustration, disgust, and disillusion.

Less often, cyberflashing occurred in platonic relationships (e.g., between coworkers or friends). In those cases, the poster was typically concerned about the ongoing relationship and if/how they should address the abuse.

Most perpetrators were men (27 of 33 specified; 82%), while victim-survivors were women (18 of 20 specified; 90%).

Victim-survivors were usually women (27 of 30 specified; 90%), while perpetrators were often men (31 of 32 specified; 97%). Most perpetrators were known to the victim-survivor (33 of 39 specified; 85%) rather than strangers (6; 15%).

The trusted status many perpetrators had with victim-survivors enabled secret recordings (20 of 38 specified; 53%). Victim-survivors shared how perpetrators recorded them: “took nude photos of me while sleeping” and “recorded me [naked] in my room.” Less frequently, images were recorded through coercion (6; 16%) or shared with consent in a different context (6; 16%).

Nearly half of the posts focused on how to navigate the relationship (e.g., whether and how to confront or break up with the perpetrator). Victim-survivors were concerned about the perpetrator’s possession of the explicit imagery (18 of 41 specified; 44%) or its distribution, e.g., via messaging (14; 34%), social media (9; 22%), or public websites (3; 7%).

Victim-survivors concerned mainly with possession primarily sought help on how to negotiate with the perpetrator, delete any explicit imagery, know if the imagery had been shared, or know how many images existed: “How can I find and delete as many as possible of the naked photos he has of me?” Conversely, victim-survivors contending with distribution focused their help-seeking on what recourse, if any, existed: I dunno what to do. He sent my mom my nudes because I was breaking up with him… Any advice would be appreciated.

Perpetrators were often men (31 of 34 specified; 91%) that victim-survivors identified as former intimate partners (8 of 32 specified; 25%), friends (8; 25%), colleagues (4; 13%), or current intimate partners (4; 13%), but also strangers (8; 25%). Victim-survivors were often women (26 of 35 specified; 74%), but sometimes men (9; 26%).

Victim-survivors shared that their assault was often secretly recorded (23 of 40; 58%), such as when they were unconscious, sleeping, drugged, or under the influence of a substance. Recorded sexual assault often co-occurred with other abuse (13 of 39; 33%)—sometimes prolonged intimate partner abuse—leaving victim-survivors in a state of severe trauma. Most victim-survivors shared that perpetrators retained recordings of the assault (26 of 40; 65%); some perpetrators distributed the recordings via messaging (7; 18%), social media (4; 10%), or websites (4; 10%).

All of these posts were deeply troubling and resulted in trauma to the victim-survivor and typically others who were exposed to the recording. Most victim-survivors asked how to cope with or understand what they had experienced, as a precursor to processing their emotions or taking a step towards remediation: “Was this sexual assault?,” “Did I just make poor decisions or was this wrong?,” “I don’t know how to feel,” and “I’m wondering if any part of this sexual assault was normal.”

Of posts that noted prior attempts at remediation, nearly half mentioned engaging with perpetrators through negotiation or mediation (76 of 176 posts; 43%). This strategy often occurred when IBSA was enacted by an intimate partner, including NCEI and pressurized sexting. Another nearly half disclosed that the victim-survivor disengaged from the perpetrator, cutting off communication (82; 47%); some attempted engaging and then disengaging. Disengaging was common when the perpetrator was a catfisher or scammer, including financial sextortion and nonconsensual synthetic explicit imagery.

Technical strategies, which included securing accounts or devices, platform reports, and deleting content, were sometimes employed (49 of 176 posts; 28%). They were infrequently reported across IBSA types, except for financial sextortion, for which victim-survivors more consistently reported deleting accounts or reporting. Often, sexually explicit images resided on a perpetrator’s personal device or chat history, making it technically challenging for victim-survivors to access and for platforms to respond. As many help-seekers posed open-ended questions (e.g., “what should I do?” as described in Section 5.3), some may not have been aware of what technical strategies were possible.

Victim-survivors rarely mentioned seeking or obtaining social support—a common practice used to cope with other forms of abuse [96, 84]—or broader institutional support. The small number of posts that did, mentioned filing police reports (20 of 176; 11%), reaching out to family or peers (19; 11%), or reaching out to the victim-survivors’ workplace (6; 3%). A common reason for not seeking social or institutional support was embarrassment: “I only told a few friends about what happened, but not with any specifics because it’s so humiliating. I really have no one to discuss this with.”

Victim-survivors asked for help coping with intense feelings, particularly in cases of recorded sexual assault and NCEI. They were overwhelmed by emotions like shame (“I’m melting from the shame and guilt”) and disgust (“I’m disgusted and feel so violated”) upon discovering the details of the IBSA, such as who images had been shared with, or who possessed (and thus had control over) the images.

Posters sought empathy (“Can anyone provide reassurance or share their experience, anything helps”) and help with processing their feelings (“I needed to vent to someone”). Some felt conflicted and experienced self-doubt in understanding their own experiences: “I don’t know how to feel, I don’t trust anything.” For many victim-survivors, experiencing IBSA was an isolating experience. They described being ostracized from social connections: “I only wrote this post because I wanted to talk to someone. I have no friends right now” or not receiving support from institutions like their employer’s human resources department, their school, or law enforcement.

Posters recognized that confronting the perpetrator could result in even more harm and asked for help in managing fears while planning next steps: “I’m scared he’ll be mad and share my pics if I confront him.”

Some victim-survivors experiencing NCEI as part of romantic relationships struggled with whether or not they should stay with their perpetrator-partner. In these posts, “love” was cited as a reason to stay, and victim-survivors questioned their own behavior: “We really love each other. However I also feel bad because he’s always spending time with me. Is he stressed out because we spend so much time together? Would it have been better if I broke up with him?” Posters also cited the central role their intimate partner played in their lives (“he’s my everything” and “everything i’ve done was with his support”).

Victim-survivors experiencing pressurized sexting and cyberflashing—typically when the perpetrator was an intimate partner—also asked about staying in the relationship (e.g., was the perpetrator’s behavior a “red flag” or “deal breaker”?). They also commonly asked for help with how to effectively confront the perpetrator, such as to ask them to stop, resist pressure, or negotiate for images to be deleted.

When the perpetrator was socially connected to the victim-survivor, but not an intimate partner, such as a work colleague or friend, victim-survivors asked how to manage the relationship moving forward: “My [22M] BFF [22F] flashed me and now won’t talk to me. What should I do?”

The primary form of help-giving was sharing information (72 of 160 threads; 45%). For financial sextortion, informational advice highlighted the scripted nature of the attack: “This scam is super common. You can’t do anything except block them (and stop sending d*ck pics to randos).” For cyberflashing and pressurized sexting, threads explained the changing norms around sexting and the choices available to victim-survivors (e.g., blocking, reporting). For NCEI and recorded sexual assault, threads instead focused on reinforcing that the experience was abuse: “Revenge porn is pretty much always considered illegal” and “This is definitely sexual assault.” Help-givers’ tone when sharing information, however, was not always comforting: “Even if you told me to imagine the most fucked up thing I could, I still wouldn’t think of that”. Furthermore, help-givers rarely pointed the poster to other communities or resources (5 of 160 threads; 3%). We discuss these limitations more in Section 7.1.

Technical advice was common across most types of IBSA (52 of 160; 32%). Some threads focused on not engaging with the perpetrator (21) or blocking and reporting a perpetrator’s account (26), e.g., in financial sextortion, pressurized sexting, or cyberflashing, where a perpetrator was a stranger or acquaintance. A less prevalent alternative was telling the victim-survivor to make their own account private to minimize contact (7). Such advice was mostly absent from IBSA involving an intimate partner, like nonfinancial sextortion, NCEI, and recorded sexual assault. Technical advice in these scenarios focused on how to delete photos if the victim-survivor had access to a perpetrator’s accounts or devices (5), how to check for backups (2), or how to find and record evidence of abuse (9): “Screenshot the convo in which your gf got the video before you delete it.” Advice to block or otherwise avoid perpetrators aligns with highly recommended advice by experts to stay safer online from harmful content [98].

Threads frequently discussed relationship advice (52 of 160; 32%), but not always in well-reasoned ways. Threads commonly directed victim-survivors to end their relationship (29) across all types of IBSA other than financial sextortion, no matter the circumstances shared by the victim-survivor, including their living or financial situation, their desire to make a relationship work (“I love him so much, and I know he loves me too”), or whether or not leaving was a safe option. For example, one victim-survivor clearly stated their desire to stay with their partner, who was not the perpetrator of the IBSA, but was still told to leave: “That’s fucking me up to the point I would dump her.” Furthermore, help-givers at times assumed worse behavior from the perpetrator than was specified in the post: “Any guy who pressures you for nudes will share them with his friends.” Some threads were more nuanced, however, laying out how the victim-survivor had agency in setting boundaries in cases of cyberflashing or pressurized sexting (20). Others advocated engaging with a perpetrator (10), particularly for NCEI and pressurized sexting, to negotiate deleting images or ceasing requests: “Send him a message asking him to delete what he filmed, that he didn’t ask for permission and broke your trust.” Finally, threads discussed creating a support network to prepare for the risk of leaked imagery or to intercede with the perpetrator (12).

Therapeutic help-giving was also common (52 of 160; 32%), such as reassuring victim-survivors that a situation was not their fault (15) and telling them to not be alarmed (14) or look after themselves (12). Threads also reiterated that a perpetrator was harmful (8) or commiserated with similar experiences (8). In the case of financial sextortion, threads focused on reassuring the victim-survivor that not engaging was the right tactic and to not be afraid: “If you haven’t sent any money, they have no reason to go after you.” Meanwhile, threads responding to NCEI, recorded sexual assault, and nonconsensual synthetic explicit imagery emphasized general support of the victim-survivor as they navigated abuse: “I hope that you heal and find sweet and honest love again.”

While less frequent, help-giving also encouraged seeking institutional support (31 of 160; 19%). This advice focused on contacting law enforcement (15) or accessing legal advice (13), therapists (8), advocacy groups (3), human resources (3), or immediate medical support (1). Such advice was largely given for cases of NCEI (9), cyberflashing (9), or recorded sexual assault (7).

Not all help-giving was supportive of victim-survivors (19 of 160; 11%). Some community members admonished the victim-survivor for their behavior, asking what they expected by sharing explicit images with others: “Honestly if you’re sending dick pics to online randoms, does it matter that they’re getting leaked?”

Others minimized or de-legitimized victim-survivors, asking “What’s the worst that can happen?” or claimed most recorded sexual assault videos found online are fake. While the majority of upvoted threads were helpful (144 of 160; 90%), these examples show how help seeking on social media can expose victim-survivors to additional shame or risk.

Victim-survivors were offered emotional support in the form of concern and empathy (Section 6.1), making it clear informal help-giving on Reddit provides a lifeline to those who might otherwise be unwilling or unable to disclose and seek help. This suggests findings from previous related work on online help-seeking for offline sexual abuse [1, 2, 36, 65, 72] are replicated for technology-facilitated sexual violence. Namely, the anonymity and visibility management often afforded by online spaces facilitates support seeking, both explicit and implicit. As in previous work [66, 97], we also observed the constraints associated with online support, such as help-givers who defaulted to certainty around the situation or the “right” outcome without asking for more details or centering the expressed needs or desires of the victim-survivor, thus overlooking important nuances. For example, the point at which a victim-survivor leaves an abusive partner poses the greatest risk of harm to the victim-survivor [92], so gender-based violence advocates typically scaffold the creation of a safety plan [16, 24]. However, help-givers commonly suggested leaving a relationship without mentioning safety plans or other risk mitigation strategies. Relative to other types of help given, referring to institutional support was the least common (Table 6). Formal organizations¹¹¹¹11Examples for tech-facilitated abuse more broadly include https://www.ceta.tech.cornell.edu/ and https://techclinic.cs.wisc.edu/ may be better suited to providing long-term and holistic support, but it is clear that connecting victim-survivors to support outside Reddit remains a challenge.

On the other hand, our work contains hints of why victim-survivors may have sought help on Reddit rather than via institutions. Between the time at which our Reddit snapshot was collected and our crawl of the live site in December 2023, 99 posts and 146 poster accounts had been deleted. Further, 41 posts were from “throwaway” accounts, i.e., accounts not used again on Reddit, suggesting that posters valued Reddit’s perceived anonymity or ephemerality. We also observed in Section 5.1 that posters most often sought help when in active crisis, and may have viewed Reddit as a faster way to get help than finding and reaching out to an advocacy organization. Of course, the fact that posters sought help on Reddit does not preclude them seeking help from other sources as well.

Our analysis of IBSA help-seeking on Reddit exemplifies two key challenges from broader technology-facilitated abuse literature. First, prior work emphasizes the weaponization of new technologies to expand the scope of potential targets [69]. For example, in most financial sextortion and cyberflashing posts in our dataset, the perpetrator was someone previously unknown to the victim-survivor before the IBSA (Sections 4.1 and 4.5); perpetrators leveraged new platforms and social discovery algorithms to find new victim-survivors. Another poster asked for preventative strategies against generative AI specifically, because they were concerned: “with all the AI hype, many people around me are making nudes of others, especially of women.” More generally, the imagery was synthetic in all NCSEI cases and victim-survivors expressed distress over the ability of perpetrators to portray them in ways they had not consented to. Perpetrators will continue to leverage new technology, necessitating ongoing research to prevent its misuse. Second, our findings reiterate the occurrence of polyvictimization, as studied in technology-facilitated violence literature [43, 56, 64]. Many victim-survivors described experiencing other types of abuse that co-occurred with the IBSA. Echoing research on intimate partner abuse [33, 93], supporting victim-survivors requires holistic and trauma-informed [19] approaches that do not regard technology as a panacea.

While some technological interventions exist for different types of IBSA, our analysis raises challenges for their reach. For example, StopNCII [90] helps victim-survivors get images removed from social media platforms, but in only nine (of 45) NCEI cases did posters mention that images had been posted on social media. More often, posters were concerned about perpetrators nonconsensually retaining images (18 of 45) or distributing them via messaging apps (14 of 45) (Section 4.6). Generally, IBSA incidents in our dataset were most frequently carried out via dedicated communication apps or direct messages on social media (143 of 247, see Table 8 in Appendix B). Fewer cases involved images being posted on one-to-many platforms: social media (72), porn websites (6), or unspecified websites (3). Nevertheless, reporting IBSA to platforms remains one of the few technical mechanisms to remove explicit images stored or shared on a platform, or to potentially take action against a perpetrator’s account and prevent others from being targeted. Thus, while reporting can be an effective intervention in these cases, our findings suggest an additional need to create contextually specific technological interventions.

Our analysis shows IBSA help-seeking on Reddit occurs in hundreds of thousands of posts, some with tens to hundreds of comment threads. This creates a burden for communities to triage and potentially leads to inconsistent advice depending on who responds in the moment. Recent advances in LLM agents could amplify help-giving: triaging incoming queries, requesting additional information as needed, providing guidance where best practices exist (e.g., for financial sextortion), and connecting victim-survivors with relevant advocacy organizations who provide hands-on support. Results from our study could guide the design of such an agent or other interventions, accounting for help-seekers’ common emotional states, questions, and needs (Section 5). Such an agent may not replace the interpersonal therapeutic support that help-seekers received through other people on Reddit, but could be more consistently available while complementing other available help-giving pathways. Early research on a non-generative AI agent is underway,¹²¹²12See Umibot, https://umi.rmit.edu.au but this remains a ripe area for exploration.

Given the complexity of remediating IBSA after an explicit image is shared, technology could play a preventative role. Given the privacy sensitivities—particularly around messaging where much of IBSA occurs (Table 8 in Appendix)—this technology would be best on-device to minimize explicit images being sent to platforms. To this end, Apple recently announced opt-in, on-device detection of sensitive (e.g., “nude”) content [4]. While these technologies are in an early stage, they might take the form of nudges against sending explicit images (e.g., pressurized sexting, financial sextortion); or blurring explicit images upon receipt (e.g., cyberflashing). The effectiveness of these nudges—and expanding the detection capabilities to dangerous interactions (e.g., early detection of sextortion patterns)—remain to be explored. Smartphones could also extend current alertness-detection methods (e.g., as used in face biometric systems to assess whether a person is awake) to prevent or make more challenging the taking of nude or explicit imagery of people who are asleep or otherwise unaware.

Technology might also play a role in mediating how, for how long, and with whom explicit images are shared to reduce the risk of IBSA like sextortion and NCEI. Qin et al. discussed options such as disappearing messages, screenshot notifications, and watermarking to prove ownership or track the origin of a leaked image [79]. In practice, the effectiveness of these technologies hinges on the origin of an image (e.g., initially consensual vs. covertly recorded), and the willingness of perpetrators to adhere to tech-mediated norms. However, any increased friction for perpetrators can still reduce harm [80].

Victim-survivors of NCEI shared that perpetrators often covertly captured explicit imagery. One intervention explored by device manufacturers in Japan and South Korea has been to emit a “shutter” sound whenever a cellphone records imagery [87]. This strategy is similar to the alert emitted by AirTags, intended to prevent stalking [70]. Such a feature could be paired with on-device detection of explicit content. Whether such a feature is acceptable to users, and to what degree it discourages NCEI, requires further investigation.

Specific to nonconsensual synthetic explicit imagery, generative AI technologies require safeguards to prevent their use in IBSA. Solutions likely require a combination of preventing harmful model outputs and also detecting synthetic explicit imagery.