Child rights NGO CRIB Foundation cautions that minors selling online sexual content may be victims of grooming, coercion, or digital exploitation.
PETALING JAYA: Children suspected of producing and selling sexual content online should not automatically be treated as willing participants as they may have been groomed, coerced or exploited, said child rights NGO CRIB Foundation co-chairperson Srividhya Ganapathy.
She said children producing their own sexual imagery was a documented feature of online child sexual exploitation, but the circumstances surrounding each case required careful examination.
The term “self-generated” describes how the material was created, often using a child’s own device, but does not establish that the child had acted freely.
“A child operating the device does not tell us who initiated, directed or profited from the exploitation.
“Authorities investigating the eight minors arrested in the recent nationwide operation should establish who communicated with them, who requested or encouraged the material, who facilitated its production, who purchased it and who benefitted financially.”
Srividhya said the reported involvement of animated sexual material also warranted early intervention if investigations found that children had independently created, exchanged or monetised sexualised content involving minors.
“The immediate task is to understand the pathway that brought each child there.
“What were they exposed to? Who introduced or encouraged the behaviour? Were adults or older children involved? What role did money, peer approval or belonging play? Where could intervention have occurred earlier?”
Srividhya said repeated exposure and reinforcement within online communities could alter a child’s perception of what was normal, acceptable or harmful.
She said “desensitisation” might not fully explain the process, particularly when children were influenced by certain peer groups or online communities.
“Criminologists also talk about neutralisation, in which people minimise the wrongfulness or harm of conduct (with terms such as) ‘everyone does it’, ‘it’s only online’, ‘it’s AI’ and ‘nobody is being hurt’.
“Those ideas need to be challenged among children and the wider public,” she said.
Srividhya added that age restrictions alone were insufficient to protect children online and should form part of a broader strategy encompassing education, safer platform design, parental support, accessible reporting channels and enforcement.
“We teach children how to cross roads. We don’t keep them away from every road until a particular birthday and then send them into traffic.
“Online safety requires building children’s digital skills while strengthening education, platform safeguards, parental support, reporting and enforcement.”
She said a child as young as 13 could become involved in producing and selling such material through several pathways, including exposure to sexual content, curiosity, peer influence, social media, closed messaging groups and grooming by adults or older children.
Money might not be the initial motivation, she added, as children could first be drawn in by attention, peer approval, a sense of belonging or social status.
“We also need to look at who requested the material, who paid for it, how the payments were made and who received the money. Were the same buyers dealing with multiple children?”
Srividhya said tracing those links could help investigators uncover wider networks instead of focusing solely on the children involved.
