Technology mediation in child sexual exploitation and abuse in Africa and Asia

Content warning: this Article contains information about child sexual exploitation and abuse, which some readers may find upsetting.

Rapid digitization is driving increasing research on the online safety of children worldwide¹, yet the impact of increasing digital connectivity in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been routinely overlooked^2,3. This gap is particularly important for Africa, where over 60% of citizens are aged under 25 years and the population is projected to double by 2050⁴, and for Asia, home to the majority of the world’s children and social media users^2,3. While many initiatives across both regions have focused on digital inclusion to benefit children’s education⁵, understanding how widening internet access affects children’s exposure to online harms has become increasingly urgent.

Among the most concerning of these harms is the use of digital technologies to perpetrate sexual violence against children^6,7,8, encompassing solicitation and dissemination of child sexual abuse material (images and videos), online grooming, live-streamed sexual abuse and sexual extortion⁸. These issues were highlighted in the 2024 US Senate Judiciary Committee⁹ hearing, which sought to hold popular social media companies to account for child safety issues on their platforms. Despite the efforts of multiple law enforcement authorities, UN organizations¹⁰, civil society organizations¹¹ and national governments¹², the true extent of technology-facilitated CSEA remains unclear for most LMICs, where children may face heightened risks of sexual violence¹³.

Effective prevention and response strategies require data-driven insights into the prevalence, root causes and effectiveness of protection systems. However, obtaining reliable data on child sexual abuse is extremely difficult. Ethical, sociocultural and safeguarding constraints limit what can be asked, how it should be asked and of whom it can be asked¹⁴. The varied international legal landscape further complicates research; in some countries legal thresholds vary and harms are not comprehensively recorded¹⁵. These challenges make research time consuming, costly and technically difficult, while limited funding and safeguarding infrastructure further constrain research capacity in LMICs¹⁶.

Here we address this evidence gap by analysing a multinational representative dataset investigating the nature and disclosure of technology-facilitated sexual exploitation and abuse experienced by children living in eastern and southern Africa and Southeast Asia. The Disrupting Harm project is a collaboration between UNICEF Office of Strategy and Evidence – Innocenti, ECPAT International and INTERPOL, funded by the Safe Online initiative, which collected survey data from nationally representative samples of 11,912 internet-using children aged 12 to 17 years across 12 countries (Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania, Uganda, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam)¹⁷ between 2020 and 2021. These data therefore provide insights into technology-facilitated CSEA experienced by children in the African and Asian contexts.

To situate these data within current terminology, we adopt the Terminology Guidelines for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (known as the Luxembourg Guidelines)¹⁸, developed through youth and expert stakeholder consultations. Importantly, this classification moves away from technological determinism while recognizing the increasingly pervasive role of technology in sexual crimes against children, across online and offline environments¹⁹. We use technology-facilitated CSEA to refer to children’s exposure to nine types of sexual harms measured in the Disrupting Harm survey (Methods). These include unwanted sexual attention through comments or images to clear instances of exploitation, including coercion into sexual conversations or activities, non-consensual sharing of children’s sexual images, offers of money or gifts in exchange for sexual content or contact and blackmail for sexual acts¹⁰. While the severity varies across these experiences, any such harms can lead to serious psychological, socioemotional and even physical consequences²⁰. Referring to such experiences merely as risks can inadvertently contribute to the normalization of abuse²¹, discourage children from disclosing their experiences and even enable perpetrators to continue offending. Although not every online risk leads to harm²², adopting a harm-focused framing is crucial to fully recognizing the severity of children’s experiences, and safeguarding their rights^23,24.

Research on technology-facilitated CSEA has expanded substantially in high-income countries¹ yet has focused predominantly on prevalence^25,26,27. Nationally representative surveys reveal wide variation in prevalence estimates due to definitional¹⁸ and methodological choices such as whether peer or adult solicitation is counted²⁸, the recall period used (past year versus lifetime)¹ and sampling denominators (all children versus internet users only)²⁹. For example, 17.7% of Australian 16–24-year-olds reported adult online sexual solicitation before age 18³⁰, while US estimates indicate that adding online abuse items can increase overall CSA prevalence estimates from 13.5% to 21.7% depending on how online harms are operationalized²⁵. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis estimates that roughly 1 in 12 children globally has experienced online CSEA (pooled past-year prevalence, 8.1%)¹. While such studies provide critical epidemiological functions such as mapping population burden, guiding resources, and enabling surveillance³¹, prevalence data alone cannot reveal whether children seek help after harm. Understanding disclosure pathways is therefore equally critical for effective prevention and response³².

To date, research on disclosure of technology-facilitated CSEA remains limited^33,34. Where it exists, it often draws on forensic or criminal-justice settings^35,36,37, which include victims who have already navigated formal reporting systems. Recent qualitative studies have identified barriers to disclosure such as self-blame, shame and lack of trust³³, yet empirical investigations into facilitators or enablers of disclosure in online environments has been limited^32,38,39,40. Evidence from broader child sexual abuse research indicates that disclosure marks a pivotal step for identifying and stopping offline sexual abuse^32,41, facilitating recovery⁴² and reducing the long-term mental health impacts^32,43,44. Children tend to first disclose to peers rather than formal reporting channels such as police, helplines or teachers^32,45,46. Yet little is known about disclosure of technology-facilitated CSEA in LMICs³⁴, where formal and informal support systems may differ substantially from those in high-income countries. Cross-cultural research on prevalence and disclosure is therefore needed to inform timely prevention, support and protection.

Guided by child-rights⁴⁷ and public-health^48,49,50 frameworks, we examine disclosure patterns and associated factors through a socio-ecological lens^51,52,53. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s General Comment No. 25 affirms that protection in digital environments depends on accessible, child-friendly pathways to seek help^24,47. From a public-health perspective, primary prevention (preventing abuse before it occurs) is the foundational priority, supported by secondary (early detection and intervention) and tertiary (treatment and rehabilitation) responses⁵⁰. These tiers are interdependent⁴⁸ as disclosure operates primarily within secondary and tertiary prevention, yet patterns of disclosure and non-disclosure can highlight how systems prevent, detect and respond to harm. When children cannot disclose, whether due to a lack of awareness, inaccessible systems or a lack of trusted adults, these barriers may signal gaps in primary prevention infrastructure⁵⁰. Conversely, when disclosure does occur, timely intervention and trauma-informed care become possible. Understanding how, to whom and under what conditions children disclose technology-facilitated CSEA can therefore guide more targeted interventions, strengthen support pathways and ultimately reduce subsequent harms to children