Trigger warning: this article discusses unwanted and harmful behavior such as (intentional or unintentional), (physical or verbal) aggression, violence, assault, harassment, intimidation, exclusion and discrimination. These are mostly thematically discussed in a broader sense. The circulation of videos with misogynistic jokes in a WhatsApp group is a concrete example, illustrated in more detail. 

“We were all meant for something bigger,
but first, we must stand.
First, we must open our mouths.
First, we must speak,
even when it feels like nothing comes out but wind.”
– Anis Mojgani

Hannah Arendt said that the sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil. Margaret Atwood wrote that an eye for an eye only leads to more blindness and that standing by while injustice happens is the greatest blindness of all.  And if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor, as Desmond Tutu, and the many people who have quoted him, have told us repeatedly. What about the people who witness harm, do not act, yet are not necessarily indifferent to injustice? What about the people who want to be good instead of evil but are afraid? The people who realize only after the fact that they were blind to how harmful a situation was, but have opened their eyes in retrospect? The bystander effect, the phenomenon where individuals are less likely to offer help to a victim of harm if they are in the presence of other people, has been elaborately researched in the field of psychology and sociology. We know that, often, bystanders not stepping in when someone is experiencing harm, can be more harmful for the person experiencing it than the harm itself. 

I recently took part in a workshop for bystanders who witness unwanted behavior and want to learn how to step in, organized by Social Safety Work, in collaboration with FNV and Stichting van de Arbeid, among others, because this is a skill that I would like to improve. This workshop had the particular context of harm in the workplace and it was primarily focused on how bystanders can support the person experiencing the harm, by making the harm stop as soon as possible. It got me thinking. I have already written about the dynamics of witnessing footage of other people’s suffering online, but what are the dynamics of being a digital bystander when you witness someone being harmed in the digital public sphere in real time? Of course, I am particularly interested in this in the context of individuals who organize together and are trying to mobilize more people to join their social movements and experience conflict in this process. Because that is what I am currently researching.

Let’s dive in. Cambridge Dictionary defines a bystander as follows:  “a person who is standing near and watching something that is happening but is not taking part in it”. It gives ‘innocent bystanders who were injured by an explosion’ as an example. Synonyms are ‘watcher’, ‘observer’, ‘spectator’, ‘viewer’, and ‘eyewitness’. What is interesting here is that this definition does not place any agency on the people witnessing harm; they are mere innocent and neutral observers and at the most can be used as eyewitnesses after the fact. However, when harm is witnessed, there are two options; bystanding or acting. This sentiment is represented on the Urban Dictionary more explicitly, where some definitions state that “there is no such thing as an innocent bystander” and that to “call someone an innocent bystander is to underestimate them”. 

When touching upon the question of why people witness harm without acting, or feeling they do not have a sense of agency, deep emotions are touched upon. Can you be truly innocent if you witness harm and did not try and stop it and what does it mean to be courageous? Are the people who freeze bad people who should be morally judged? It can’t be as black and white. In The Bystander Effect: The Psychology of Courage and How to Be Brave, Catherine Sanderson explains that the diffusion of responsibility and the misperception of personal powerlessness often prevent individuals from challenging wrongdoing. According to her, the moral courage, which is needed to act, is rare but can be triggered or trained. 

The bystander effect and moral courage 

In the workshop, we started with defining what the group of participants would categorize as ‘unwanted behavior’. We landed on (intentional or unintentional), (physical or verbal) aggression, violence, assault, harassment, intimidation, exclusion and discrimination. Bullying, sexually transgressive behavior, inappropriate jokes, gossip, and entering someone’s physical space (either touching or physical nearness) & sharing information or images online without consent were also mentioned as examples. The most important thing here is that the person being harmed is the only person who can know whether the behavior was harmful to them – not the person causing the harm, even if their intention was not to harm. Because most people would agree on the fact that extreme behavior, let’s use physical violence at the workplace as an example, should not be tolerated. However, it becomes sticky when we move into what some might categorize as grayer areas. A sexist joke in a meeting for example, where comments such as ‘it was just a joke, lighten up’ or ‘I did not mean it that way’ are often used, indicate that harm is often not being taken seriously and confused with intention. When we move to the online sphere, where people mostly communicate through text, tone and intention are even more difficult to navigate. But I’ll come to this later. 

The people who are most at risk for unwanted behavior or harm, and this should come as no surprise, are people who are in a marginalized position and who are in a less favorable position regarding power. To take the workplace as a simplified example again, if you are a woman in an office full of men or if you have a precarious contract, the chances of you experiencing unwanted behavior or harm are increased. In the context of a social movement, where organizations are often horizontal and people work because they care not because they are being paid, you could think of status playing a role. A well-known activist might not have a formal hierarchical role but can have a certain authority, causing them to have a lower chance of experiencing harm than someone who new to organizing, for example. 

Why is it then, that so many people don’t step in, when they witness harm? Sanderson gives a few reasons for moral courage being rare:

• When multiple people witness a problem, they assume someone else will take action, so in the end, no one does.
• People worry about their reputation being on the line if they step in, facing backlash, or damaging relationships (or contracts) if they intervene. 
• Many people (subconsciously) prefer to fit in rather than stand out, so they match their behavior to the group’s response.
• Social hierarchies discourage challenging authority figures (whether they are officially or unofficially authoritative), even when they cause harm.
• If a situation is unclear, people often look to others for cues on how to act, which can result in collective inaction. 

When I witness harm I have a few default reactions. I either confront the person harming someone without considering the possible consequences or I freeze. Sometimes I overthink and am not sure if the person being harmed would want me to step in, as I don’t want to escalate a situation or disregard their autonomy to stand up for themselves – which often results in me just freezing again. As these are instinctive and reactive responses, I was happy that at the workshop we were presented with a framework of strategies for bystanders to consider:

• Address Directly: Directly addressing the harm that is happening can be done in multiple ways – from verbally pointing it out and demanding it to stop to physically intervening. This is the option that most people are most afraid of doing and could lead to escalation. There are also other options to consider. 
• Distract: distracting the person doing the harm could be the easiest and fastest way to make the behavior stop. In the workshop examples such as a subtle redirect in the conversation, getting someone out of a situation by requesting their help with something, dropping your tea by accident, and activating a fire alarm were mentioned.  
• Delegate: if you are not able to directly help or know your presence could escalate the situation negatively causing more harm, you could ask someone else to step in – someone who has a better personal relationship with the people involved or someone who has a more favorable position of power.  
• Postpone: directly addressing or delegating are actions that can be taken at a later time, if you were not able to act in the moment itself. This gives you time to check in with the person undergoing the harm and making sure their needs are being met in this process. 
• Document: photo/videograph, screenshot, or note down what you are witnessing is not only evidence collection (in case that is needed) but also helps you to keep your memories clear and the facts straight, if you decide to postpone and come back to the situation later. To assess the situation it helps to write down the characteristics, relationships/positions and visual signs of the behavior (think body language, tone of voice) of both the person experiencing the harm and the person harming. 

For me, it helps to know that there are different strategies to consider and take a moment to think before reacting. Not every situation calls for the same approach and not every personality matches all of these, but everyone could probably find one that they would consider at least. To be able to actually act though, people still need to train their moral courage. Because speaking out and stepping in can be scary, even if you know it’s the right thing to do. For this, Sanderson mentions the following: 

• Being aware of the bystander effect is a first step (and a crucial one) and can already help people overcome their passive tendencies. 
• Speaking up can be scary, especially if you’re not used to it. Slowly growing your confidence by practicing small acts of ‘moral assertiveness’ makes it easier to step in when necessary in larger situations. 
• Having a moral understanding of the world is something you can learn and practice. Keep reflecting, and keep talking to other people with beliefs other than your own. Curiosity is key. The more you know, the easier it will be to act.  
• Find allies. Speaking up is less scary when you don’t have to do it alone. One other person on your side already makes a huge difference.
• To be aware of your fear is step one. Step two is to reframe it. If we only consider what could happen to us, we forget what will happen to the person being harmed if we do not step in. 
• Empathy is also something that can be learned and practiced. If you are able to truly put yourself in the shoes of the person undergoing the harm, the chances of you stepping in are much higher.  
• Finally, and this might be the most difficult one as requires long-term strategies and systemic change, a culture of accountability is needed. Being part of an organization or community that rewards speaking out for other people will encourage more people to do so.

In the workshop, we discussed a few case studies to see what we would and could do – to see what our moral courage looks like in practice, if you will. One of them stuck with me. If in a group chat, a few colleagues keep sharing inappropriate videos with misogynistic jokes and no one addresses it, what would be the best line of action? Go to your manager? Call the people sharing the videos directly to talk about it? Address it with them in person? Send them a personal message asking them to stop? Pointing out that what they are sharing is not okay, publicly in the group chat? Sharing screenshots and calling them out for the entire web to see? A passage aggressive emoji? We could not agree. When we think of bystanding we usually think of situations in our physical space, but a lot of harm is also done in the digital realm. So I could not help but wonder, what happens if everything is documented by default, if harm happens online, and if these receipts could live their own lives when they circulate? 

Considerations for Bystanders of Online Harm

Much research has shown that online types of violence often lead to real-life violence. Jessica Reyman and Erika Sparby, in Toward an Ethic of Responsibility in Digital Aggression, write that digital aggression in today’s digital world is widespread and without clear paths for accountability and resolution. They explain that, similarly to offline aggression, much of this activity targets people in marginalized positions. According to James Porter, who writes about friends, enemies, and strangers interacting with each other on the web, the internet has become a hostile environment where aggression and harassment are issues that must be addressed. According to him, it is important to respect others, but also demand respect, as the answer should never be to ignore aggression; “it has to be named, denounced, and opposed.” 

What does online harm or unwanted behavior look like then and how can we oppose it? The categories we landed on in the workshop remain. (Intentional or unintentional) aggression, violence, assault, harassment, intimidation, exclusion, and discrimination are all possible in the digital realm, with the only expectation being that it is not physical and mostly text, audio or image-based. Various forms of harm take place in various contexts; from personal messages and group chats to public social media platforms – from inappropriate text messages, hurtful comments, and the sharing of private information to coordinated troll or bot attacks, actual threats and calls to offline violence (remember that pro-rape Telegram group with over 20.000 men in them that was discovered not too long ago?). Within the social movements realm, doxing is a huge risk for example; if your home address lands in the wrong hands, it could compromise your safety. 

When harm is witnessed online, what does it mean to be a bystander? I’ve written before that our current apocalyptic doom-scrolling climate is extremely alienating and I’ve asked whether users have stopped witnessing and if are they just watching now. Are we too desensitized to realize we have agency to act when online harm occurs? Does not being physically present make it harder to recognize it as such if it does not happen to ourselves? Can we break out of this cycle of inactivity that is so typical of our current digital climate, the cycle of doing nothing? 

What could the different strategies for bystanders look like when it considers online harm, then? 

• Address Directly: respond to a harmful comment or message directly, deny the person harming access to a group chat or block them, etc. 
• Distract: change the topic in the group chat, send a weird sticker or emoji, etc.
• Delegate: ask someone else to address a comment or message, ask a moderator to take action, etc. 
• Postpone: report a comment to let the platform take it down, send a private message to the person experiencing the harm to check in with them (or check in with them in person if you can), etc.  
• Document: screenshot screenshot screenshot. 

What happens when individuals who are part of the same social movement and are organizing together harm each other (unintentionally), when the emotional stakes are high and conflict is often present? To conclude, I would once again like to leave you with some open questions you could consider when you witness online harm in this context. Hopefully, they will help you decide what the appropriate action for you to take could be; to help open your mouth, even when it feels like nothing comes out but wind. 

• • Who is being harmed, and how might they be experiencing this situation?
  • Does the person experiencing harm seem to want support, and how can I check in with them?
  • What is my relationship with the people involved, and does that give me a specific role or responsibility here? 
  • Could a direct intervention help or escalate the situation?
  • Is this happening privately, semi-privately, or publicly?  
  • If I don’t feel comfortable speaking up directly, what other strategies (distract, delegate, postpone, document) could I use?
  • Who else might be in a better position to step in, and how can I involve them?
  • If this were happening to me, what kind of response would I hope for from bystanders?
  • How can I act in a way that aligns with my values, even if I feel afraid or uncertain?
  • If I do nothing now, will I regret it later?
  • How can I respond in a way that prioritizes the safety and dignity of the person being harmed?
  • How should I take my own safety into account?
    
    Social movements
  • How does this situation relate to the broader goals of our movement, and how might my response affect our collective values?
  • Is this an isolated incident, or does it reflect a larger pattern of behavior that needs to be addressed within our movement?
  • If the harm is directed at someone in a marginalized position within our movement, how can I act in a way that acknowledges their experience?
  • What impact might my response have on the unity of the movement, and how can I balance standing up for justice with maintaining solidarity?
  • Is this conflict stemming from a misunderstanding or a deeper ideological difference, and how can I navigate this with sensitivity?
  • How can I ensure that my intervention doesn’t inadvertently silence or overshadow the person experiencing harm?
  • Am I considering the emotional and physical safety of the person being harmed when deciding how to intervene?
  • What are the possible consequences of ignoring this harm for the reputation and accountability of our movement?
  • How can I model the kind of accountability and allyship I hope to see in our movement by stepping in now?
  • What support systems or resources within the movement (e.g., trusted allies, moderators, organizers) can I tap into to help address the harm more effectively?
  • Does it make sense to privately/internally or publicly/externally address this? How can we be transparent? Do we need outside help?
    
    Online
  • How does the nature of this harm (e.g., text, image, video) change how I should respond in an online space?
  • Am I sure I am witnessing harm and interpreting this correctly? Can I ask someone for clarification? 
  • What platforms or digital spaces are involved, and how do their specific rules or tools (e.g., reporting, blocking, privacy settings) influence my response?
  • How public is this situation, and could my response escalate or spread the harm further?
  • What does the online community culture look like on this platform, and how can I contribute to shaping it in a positive way through my actions?
  • How are the infrastructures and goals of the platforms shaping the harm and how can we act strategically? 
  • Could the harm be a result of trolling, and how can I address it without amplifying the negativity?
  • Is this harm being shared in a group or public forum where others are complicit or silent—how can I encourage collective responsibility in the digital space?
  • How can I balance the need for privacy and protection for the person harmed with the need to speak out and address the behavior publicly?
  • Could documenting this harm (e.g., screenshots, videos) help raise awareness and support for the person being harmed, or would it further violate their privacy or safety?
  • If this harm is part of a larger pattern of online abuse, how can I collaborate with others in the movement to expose and challenge this pattern?
  • What steps can I take to ensure that my intervention doesn’t become performative or about my own visibility in the digital space, but truly supports the person harmed?

Works Cited 

Arkenbout, Chloë. 2024. “Reflections on Trigger Warnings: A Practice of Care, a Refusal of Witnessing.” Institute of Network Cultures. July 11, 2024. https://networkcultures.org/blog/2024/07/11/reflections-on-trigger-warnings-a-practice-of-care-a-refusal-of-witnessing/.

Arkenbout, Chloë. 2025. “Navigating Emotional Tensions Within Social Movements During the Rise of Platform Fascism.” Institute of Network Cultures. January 15, 2025. https://networkcultures.org/thedigitalgutmensch/2025/01/15/navigating-emotional-tensions-within-social-movements-during-the-rise-of-platform-fascism/.

Cambridge Dictionary. n.d. “Bystander.” Accessed March 17, 2025. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bystander#google_vignette.

Porter, James E. 2020. “Interacting with Friends, Enemies, and Strangers.” In Digital Ethics: Rhetoric and Responsibility in Online Aggression, edited by Jessica Reyman and Erika M. Sparby, xvi-xxii. New York and London: Routledge.

Reyman, Jessica, and Erika M. Sparby. 2020. “Toward an Ethic of Responsibility in Digital Aggression.” In Digital Ethics: Rhetoric and Responsibility in Online Aggression, edited by Jessica Reyman and Erika M. Sparby, xvi-xxii. New York and London: Routledge.

Sanderson, Catherine. 2020. The Bystander Effect: The Psychology of Courage and How to Be Brave. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Social Safety. n.d. “Omstander Training.” https://socialsafety.work/omstanderstraining.

Urban Dictionary. n.d. “Innocent Bystanders.” Accessed March 17, 2025. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=innocent%20bystanders.