On May 27, 2026, a journalist from the online media outlet Texty.org.ua experienced manifestations of online violence in comment sections. She reported this in a post on the social network Threads.
“Every journalist has a day when they receive threats. For me, that day was yesterday. For those who are used to communicating aggressively online, a reminder: threats against a journalist for their work are a criminal offense,” Valeria Pavlenko wrote.
In screenshots published by the media professional, a comment from a user with the nickname @michael010307 is visible. The user wrote: “Ms. Host, will you feel okay walking down the street after videos like these? Aren’t you afraid your work for the Presidential Office will come back to haunt you someday? Or simply, aren’t you ashamed?” (original punctuation preserved).
In a comment to Women in Media, the journalist said the online attacks began after Texty.org.ua published a YouTube video — a research study titled “The Invasion of Migrants in Ukrainian TikTok. A Texty Investigation.”
“We at Texty published our monitoring of social networks on the topic of migrants, where we found that the recent wave of anti-migrant posts contains many symptoms of a Russian propaganda campaign. One viewer disliked it so much that they decided to write several critical comments, one of which contained threats against me. After the author posted this comment, I engaged with them in the comments: I explained that threats against a journalist for their work carry criminal liability and asked them to provide their identity instead of hiding behind an anonymous account. The user initially agreed, said they were not afraid to share their data, but then continued their criticism, saying I should be ashamed to work for the president and that I ‘live in a bubble,’ and similar remarks. Later, after I insisted they provide their details, they deleted the comment and all others under the video,” Valeria Pavlenko said.
She also added that after she published the post with screenshots documenting signs of online attacks on Threads, such attacks from anonymous users increased. At the same time, some commenters under her post argued that the examples shown in the screenshots do not constitute threats. Valeria Pavlenko disagrees:
“I published this post to show that there must be boundaries in online communication, not to debate legal definitions. Because of anonymity, people allow themselves too much. I don’t understand how phrases like ‘aren’t you afraid to go outside after such videos, aren’t you afraid it will come back to haunt you’ cannot be interpreted as threats. One woman in the comments who experienced something similar — but where the perpetrator went further and started messaging her privately — supported me. It seems telling that only people who have directly experienced this supported me,” she said.
Indeed, under the Threads post in question, there are comments downplaying the potential danger to the journalist. Some users write that they “do not see any threats.”
Comments showing signs of technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV) were also recorded under the YouTube video itself. For example, statements containing gendered disinformation — accusations of being “grant-eaters,” such as: “Another grant-eating pseudo-media outlet has set out to justify the mass import of Indians. I already thought something died in the forest when there was no video justifying the replacement of Ukrainians.”
Thus, the described case demonstrates features of technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV), combining online threats, gendered disinformation, reputational attacks, and the devaluation of the journalist’s experience as a person affected by violence.
The NGO “Women in Media” emphasizes that comments such as “will you be okay walking down the street after such videos?” bear the characteristics of veiled threats and intimidation aimed at creating a sense of danger for the journalist because of her professional activity. At the same time, manipulative accusations of working “for the president” and being a “grant-eater” are used. These are typical elements of gendered disinformation and online defamation. The aim of such actions may be to discredit the media professional and portray her as politically or financially biased.
In addition, a characteristic feature of TFGBV in this case is the reaction of part of the audience — denial of the existence of threats and minimization of the journalist’s experience. This further intensifies the atmosphere of pressure and may normalize aggression against women in media.
According to a study by the NGO Women in Media and UNESCO, 81% of survey participants had experienced some form of online violence. A total of 180 women media professionals took part in the study. At the same time, 14% of respondents who had faced online violence reported that threats originating in the digital space escalated into risks in the physical world for them.
In addition, we prepared a practical guide for media outlets, “Steps for Newsroom to Take in the First 24 Hours Following an Online Attack against a Woman Journalist” which outlines a response algorithm for editorial teams.