While there is a vast range of impacts different abuse types can have, the intentions for these actions vary far less. These are some of the most common motivations perpetrators may have.
All of the intents listed here have common features: there is an aspect of intentionally or carelessly causing harm or distress to another person, and a desire to maintain or gain power and control.
For the purpose of introducing viewers to this space, relationships displayed between objects in this taxonomy (abuse types, perpetrator types, mitigation strategies, etc) represent the most common connections we've seen between them. In the real world, any object can relate to any other.
Is there anything you’d like to provide comment on in this taxonomy? We’d love to hear your feedback!
If we as T&S professionals seek to mitigate harm, one way we can do that is by keeping potential perpetrators from wanting to perform the act of abuse in the first place. Some forms of abuse can be done by people who do not understand their actions as inherently harmful. Sharing intimate images of a partner in a group chat with friends is harmful, but it is not the same as sharing it online to discredit a political figure.
By understanding perpetrators’ intentions, we can understand the appropriate amount of force needed to combat the abuse at different stages. Intentions can change how a perpetrators uses software, and so the friction / disincentive structures we set up might differ between them, even if the resulting form of abuse is the same.
Perpetrators are users of the same software, but they are using it in an unintended way. By understanding their user experience, we can speak to them in a way they are more likely to hear. We can create more efficient, nuanced mitigations.