When Technically Plausible Advice Is Unsafe: A Cross-Ecosystem Measurement of Online Support for Technology-Facilitated Abuse

Key Findings

• — In the manually evaluated accuracy sample, 19.6% of conversational-AI responses, 17.3% of webpages and 13.3% of Reddit threads contained damaging guidance (advice that may increase danger or destroy evidence)
• — General-purpose LLMs produced fully or partially supported responses in 64-80% of cases; the survivor-support chatbot Ruth reached 70% and HopeChat 24%, with HopeChat giving no substantive technical guidance in more than half of its responses
• — General-purpose systems made occasional factual errors and varied on trauma-informed support; Ruth remained limited on the trauma-informed dimensions
• — Reddit responses were less consistently relevant and actionable than search or conversational systems
• — The framework adds ecosystem-specific risks: secondary-link integrity on webpages, toxicity on Reddit, trauma-informed support in conversational systems

Methodology Notes

Query corpus extracted with Llama 3.3 from r/Stalking posts (human audit of 40 posts); LLM-judge scoring with Llama 3.3, GPT-OSS 20B and Gemma3 12B plus manual audits; 50 responses per conversational system. v1 2026-07-23 under the title 'Seeking Help in the Digital Age'; v2 2026-09-23 retitled as above. Not peer reviewed.

Sources