Open Access

Algorithmic Abuse: How Social Platforms Amplify Revenge Porn, digital grooming and Sexual Coercion

4 University of Agriculture, Pakistan

Abstract

The proliferation of digital technologies has transformed intimate relationships, introducing new forms of abuse that operate at the intersection of technology, psychology, and criminal behavior. Intimate image abuse commonly known as revenge porn has emerged as a significant form of technology-facilitated sexual violence, with live streaming platforms creating novel opportunities for exploitation, blackmail, and coercion. This research examines how ostensibly “normal” relationship behaviors such as sexting, digital monitoring, and online flirtation can escalate into intimate image abuse, blackmail, and sexual violence within the context of monetized live streaming platforms like Bigolive. The study employs a qualitative systematic review methodology, synthesizing peer-reviewed literature from 2012-2025 across psychology, criminology, and media studies. Using a social constructionist framework and attribution theory, the research analyzes the psychological mechanisms (online disinhibition effect, dehumanization) and platform design features (monetization, anonymity) that facilitate this escalation. Findings reveal that approximately 38% of individuals do not recognize intimate partner cyber abuse as abusive, normalizing behaviors that can precede severe harm. Live streaming platforms’ monetization structures virtual gifting, real-time payment systems create financial incentives that directly reward boundary violation and coercion. The online disinhibition effect enables toxic behaviors, while attribution patterns frequently blame victims for “provoking” their own exploitation. The normalization of digital monitoring and intimate image sharing in romantic relationships creates a continuum where “ordinary” behaviors can escalate into criminal acts. Platform accountability mechanisms and prevention strategies must address structural incentives that reward exploitation.

Keywords

References

📄 Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321-326.
📄 Rosado, V. (2026, March 3). From visibility to vulnerability: How TikTok’s monetization model enables sexual exploitation. The Institute to Address Commercial Sexual Exploitation.
📄 Amudhan, S., Sharma, M. K., Anand, N., & Johnson, J. (2024). “Snapping, sharing and receiving blame”: A systematic review on psychosocial factors of victim blaming in non-consensual pornography. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 33(1), 3-12.
📄 Sanz Luque, B., Bauer, F., Son, G-Y., & Kluge, H. (2025, December 23). On and beyond the screen: The reality of digital violence. UN Women/UNFPA/UNDCO/WHO.
📄 McEwen, T. (2026, February 16). Exploitation on demand: How livestreaming features accelerate the commercial sexual exploitation of children. The Institute to Address Commercial Sexual Exploitation.
📄 Hall, M., & Hearn, J. (2018). Revenge pornography: Gender, sexuality and motivations. Routledge.
📄 Butler, L. C., Fissel, E. R., Graham, A., & Fisher, B. S. (2024). “If you have nothing to hide it shouldn’t be a problem”: The social construction of cyber abuse and normalized cyber behaviors in intimate relationships. Victims & Offenders, 1-26.
📄 Mirchandani, A. (2025, April 1). Digital exploitation: How social media and financial instability fuel human trafficking. The Institute to Address Commercial Sexual Exploitation.
📄 Bates, S. (2017). Revenge porn and mental health: A qualitative analysis of the mental health effects of revenge porn on female survivors. Feminist Criminology, 12(1), 22-42.
📄 Butler, L. C., Fissel, E. R., Graham, A., & Fisher, B. S. (2024). Supplemental materials: “If you have nothing to hide it shouldn’t be a problem.” Victims & Offenders.
📄 Citron, D. K., & Franks, M. A. (2014). Criminalizing revenge porn. Wake Forest Law Review, 49, 345-391.
📄 Bloom, S. (2014). No revenge for revenge porn: Why current legislation fails to adequately address the harm caused by revenge porn and why legislation targeting it is not the answer. Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, 35(3), 269-304.
📄 Chiroro, P., Bohner, G., Viki, G. T., & Jarvis, C. I. (2004). Rape myth acceptance and rape proclivity: Expected dominance versus expected arousal as mediators in acquaintance-rape situations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(4), 427-442.
📄 Clay-Warner, J., & Burt, C. H. (2005). Rape reporting after reforms: Have times really changed? Violence Against Women, 11(2), 150-176.
📄 Dir, A. L., Coskunpinar, A., Steiner, J. L., & Cyders, M. A. (2013). Understanding differences in sexting behaviors across gender, relationship status, and sexual identity, and the associated effects of sexting on well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(8), 568-574.
📄 Gruber, J. E., & Fineran, S. (2007). The impact of bullying and sexual harassment on middle and high school girls. Violence Against Women, 13(6), 627-643.
📄 Ho, I. K., Dinh, K. T., Bellfontaine, S. M., & Irving, A. L. (2012). Sexual harassment and posttraumatic stress symptoms among Asian and White women. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 21(1), 95-113.
📄 Joinson, A. N. (2007). Disinhibition and the internet. In J. Gackenbach (Ed.), Psychology and the internet: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal implications (2nd ed., pp. 75-92). Academic Press.
📄 Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 46(1), 80-97.
📄 Rice, R. E., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computer-mediated communication network. Communication Research, 14(1), 85-108.
📄 Samimi, P., & Alderson, K. G. (2014). Sexting among undergraduate students. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 23(2), 79-86.
📄 Vogels, E. A., & Anderson, M. (2020). Dating and relationships in the digital age. Pew Research Center.
📄 Carmody, M., & Carrington, K. (2000). Preventing sexual violence? Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 33(3), 341-361.
📄 Cecil, A. L. (2014). Taking back the internet: Imposing civil liability on interactive computer services in an attempt to provide an adequate remedy to victims of nonconsensual pornography. Washington and Lee Law Review, 71(4), 2513-2558.
📄 Chapleau, K. M., & Oswald, D. L. (2010). Power, sex, and rape myth acceptance: Testing two models of rape proclivity. Journal of Sex Research, 47(1), 66-78.
📄 Franks, M. A. (2016). Drafting an effective “revenge porn” law. Criminal Law Bulletin, 52(5), 1128-1157.
📄 Henry, N., & Powell, A. (2015). Beyond the ‘sext’: Technology-facilitated sexual violence and harassment against adult women. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48(1), 104-118.
📄 McGlynn, C., Rackley, E., & Houghton, R. (2017). Beyond ‘revenge porn’: The continuum of image-based sexual abuse. Feminist Legal Studies, 25(1), 25-46.
📄 Powell, A., & Henry, N. (2017). Sexual violence in a digital age. Palgrave Macmillan.
📄 Salter, M. (2016). Privates in the online public: Sex(ting) and reputation on social media. In T. Zembylas (Ed.), Social media and privacy (pp. 145-162). Routledge.