Previous research on online aggression has predominantly focused on cyberbullying, largely overlooking forms which are commonly rationalised as less serious (e.g. celebrity hate, behavioural criticisms). In this study, 140 undergraduate psychology students each viewed twelve vignettes depicting online attacks, systematically varying the identity of the target (celebrity vs. non-celebrity), the topic of the attack (personal vs. behavioural), and the relevance of the attack to the target's role (role-relevant vs. not relevant). Participants rated each vignette for perceived expectedness, fairness, impact on targets, and severity. Results indicated significant effects of topic and target identity: attacks on non-celebrities were generally considered worse (less expected and fair, more harmful and serious) than attacks on celebrities, while attacks based on weight or appearance were considered worse than those based on behaviour. Effects of role-relevance were more complex, emerging as interactions rather than main effects. Responses to open-ended questions echoed these findings, but also suggested that participants considered the broader social context of attacks when assessing vignettes. Concerningly, findings suggest that the increasing prevalence and visibility of online attacks results in desensitisation, with more common forms of aggression discounted-yet some standards persist regarding topics and targets who are considered "off-limits".