The internet is not only crowded with bad actors. It is crowded with unprocessed pain. Every day, across platforms, unresolved grief and threat biology spill into public view and get mislabeled as simple malice. Some people who harass are predatory. Many more are displaced, dysregulated, or drowning in anger without a safe outlet. If we keep pretending this is only a character problem, we will keep missing the clinical reality and the ethical fix.
What we are actually seeing online
Grief does not always look like tears. In trauma populations, it often flips outward. Projection is an old defense. When a person cannot tolerate an internal state, the mind assigns it to someone else. Offline, that reads as snapping at strangers or driving in a rage. Online, it shows up as obsessive posting, drive-by attacks, and open-ended smears framed as public service. Large surveys confirm the scope of the harm to targets. Few studies ask what is happening to the harasser. When it does, the pattern looks less like measured cruelty and more like psychological bleeding.
Complicated grief as a rage trap
For a minority, grief does not resolve. It becomes chronic and destabilizing, especially after traumatic loss, betrayal, or endings without closure. In that state, the world stops making sense. Without trauma-informed support, the pain goes somewhere cheap and fast. Social media offers speed, anonymity, and dopamine rewards for outrage. It does not offer containment or repair. That mix invites escalation, not integration.
A threat-biased brain on a 24-hour platform
CPTSD changes how the brain handles danger. The amygdala becomes quick to fire. The prefrontal cortex loses influence under stress. The result is a system that reads neutral signals as threats and treats small disagreements as betrayals. Put that brain in front of an endless stream of posts and you get misattribution at scale. A public figure becomes a stand-in for an old abuser. A cautious comment becomes an attack. Studies linking trauma exposure with hostile online behavior support what clinicians see every week: when people feel unsafe, they fight ghosts that feel real.
How hostility takes shape in practice
Patterns repeat. One person becomes a fixation. Neutral content is read as personal harm. “Accountability” campaigns grow from thin or shifting claims. Minor disputes trigger major outrage. Attention and control feel briefly stabilizing, so the behavior continues. This is displacement in real time. It is not always conscious. It is still real. Naming the mechanism does not excuse the impact on targets. It clarifies the engine so responses can be effective instead of theatrical.
Accountability without excuses
Understanding the trauma behind harassment does not mean tolerating it. Consequences and boundaries protect people. Clarity protects systems. Report and block remain necessary but are not sufficient. A durable response needs three lanes. Platforms and moderators need training on how trauma distorts perception so they can weigh patterns, corroboration, and risk instead of rewarding volume. Clinicians need to assess digital triggers as part of safety planning and stabilization. Targets need procedures that do not leave them alone with a mute button and a form. None of this requires special pleading. It requires the same mix of ethics and evidence we expect in any other public-health problem.
Final thoughts
“Hurt people hurt people” is too simple to guide policy, but the core is useful. You can recognize hurt and still hold a hard line against harm. Much online abuse is unmanaged grief and threat biology acting out in a cheap arena. It is not okay. If we keep misdiagnosing it, we will keep choosing tools that do not work, and we will keep losing people behind usernames who needed real help long before the first post.
References
Brailovskaia J, Margraf J. The relationship between exposure to traumatic events and online aggression: A study among internet users. Computers in Human Behavior. 2021;115:106616.
Pew Research Center. Online Harassment 2020.
Shear MK, Simon NM, Wall M, et al. Complicated grief and related bereavement issues for DSM-5. Depression and Anxiety. 2011;28(2):103-117.
van der Kolk BA. The Body Keeps the Score. New York: Viking; 2014.
Photo by Nathan Dumlao on Unsplash
Guest Post Disclaimer: Any and all information shared in this guest blog post is intended for educational and informational purposes only. Nothing in this blog post, nor any content on CPTSDfoundation.org, is a supplement for or supersedes the relationship and direction of your medical or mental health providers. Thoughts, ideas, or opinions expressed by the writer of this guest blog post do not necessarily reflect those of CPTSD Foundation. For more information, see our Privacy Policy and Full Disclaimer.
Dr. Mozelle Martin is a retired trauma therapist and former Clinical Director of a trauma center, with extensive experience in forensic psychology, criminology, and applied ethics. A survivor of childhood and young adulthood trauma, Dr. Martin has dedicated decades to understanding the psychological and ethical complexities of trauma, crime, and accountability. Her career began as a volunteer in a women’s domestic violence shelter as a hospital advocate, later becoming a Police Crisis Therapist working alongside law enforcement on the streets of Phoenix. She went on to earn an AS in Psychology, a BS in Forensic Psychology, an MA in Criminology, and a PhD in Applied Ethics, ultimately working extensively in forensic mental health—providing psychological assessments, crisis intervention, and rehabilitative support within prisons and jails. Dr. Martin is also pursuing advanced legal studies at ASU Law, focusing on internet/cyber-defamation and constitutional law to advocate for stronger protections against targeted professional attacks online. A published author and lifelong student of life, she continues to explore the intersections of forensic science, mental health, and ethical accountability in both historical and modern contexts.
