Paolo Galdieri : 23 August 2025 09:23
The recent incident involving the Facebook group “My Wife,” active since 2019 and boasting over 32,000 members, highlights a dynamic intertwining privacy violations, nonconsensual pornography, systemic misogyny, and serious questions about the role of digital platforms. In this space, users have shared photographs of women without their consent, often images stolen from everyday life or private shots intended exclusively for a partner, sometimes accompanied by violent and explicitly sexist comments.
This behavior cannot be dismissed as online pranks. We are dealing with conduct that violates the dignity of the people involved and has specific legal implications. The crime of so-called revenge porn would only arise if intimate or sexually explicit images were shared without the consent of the person depicted. Even in the case of seemingly innocuous images, such as a swimsuit photo or a home selfie, their unauthorized dissemination remains a violation of privacy and an act capable of producing devastating personal and social consequences.
The heart of the issue concerns the role of platforms that host such groups and content. In Europe, the established principle until the Digital Services Act came into force was that of the limited liability of hosting providers, who cannot be burdened by a general obligation to monitor user-uploaded content. This approach was intended to safeguard freedom of expression and prevent intermediaries from becoming private judges of what is lawful and what is unlawful.
However, the “Mia Moglie” case demonstrates the challenges of maintaining a vision of absolute platform neutrality. Giants like Meta are not simply technical tools for data transmission, but true protagonists of the global information ecosystem. Their economic power and ability to influence public debate make it difficult to imagine them limiting themselves to a passive role. The lack of accountability, even commensurate with their market power, translates into substantial impunity for the side effects their own services generate.
The case also demonstrates the inherent barriers to technological moderation tools. AI-based recognition algorithms can detect explicit nudity and blatant pornography, but they lack the ability to understand context.
A photograph of a woman on the beach may appear to be harmless content when analyzed by software, but in reality it may constitute an instance of abusive dissemination and a breach of privacy. Similarly, automated systems struggle to distinguish between an ironic comment and an incitement to violence. What appears to a machine as neutral language may be, to a human reader, a seriously threatening or degrading message.
This technical limitation is structural and irreversible, because no artificial intelligence can determine whether content has been shared with the consent of the person depicted.
For this reason, relying solely on algorithms and automated systems means accepting inevitable grey areas and allowing many violations to remain invisible. Effective moderation cannot exist without human input, reliable verification procedures, and a clear legal framework that assigns tasks and responsibilities.
The debate cannot be reduced to a stark choice between totally irresponsible platforms and platforms transformed into private courts of the web. The most reasonable approach is a balance between freedom of expression and the protection of fundamental rights.
Some tools already identified at the regulatory level can serve as a starting point. These include transparency requirements on moderation policies, simple and rapid reporting procedures that allow users to obtain the removal of abusive content within a specified timeframe, independent auditing systems to monitor the effectiveness of controls, and a principle of graduated responsibility that takes into account the economic size and actual power of the platform.
From this perspective, it would be senseless to impose the same burdens on a small digital company and a global giant like Meta or X. However, ignoring the role of those who derive billions in profits from content sharing would mean giving up one of the most effective tools for preventing and combating online violence.
Toward a new culture of digital responsibility
The “Mia Moglie” case presents us with the image of a problem that is not only legal, but also social and cultural. Digital violence does not arise from algorithms, but from the mindset of those who consider it legitimate to appropriate the intimacy of others and share it in virtual spaces of complicity and voyeurism.
Technology can help, but it cannot replace collective awareness. An integrated approach is needed that combines criminal and civil law, accountability for platforms, digital education, and a new education on respect for gender relations.
The internet is not a separate, unregulated territory. It is an integral part of real life and, as such, must be governed by principles of responsibility and personal protection.
As long as major economic players continue to present themselves as neutral, any measure will remain partial. Until mainstream culture understands that privacy is a fundamental right and not an obstacle, any progress will be fragile.
The “My Wife” episode reminds us that the challenge of digital responsibility is one of the central issues of our time. A challenge that involves law, politics, technology, and above all, civil society.
Paolo Galdieri