When we used to think about crime on the internet, we pictured the hidden corners of the dark web, anonymous communities and obscure forums. It seemed to exist somewhere far from our everyday digital lives, in places we rarely saw or even knew how to access.
But that boundary has blurred. Today, criminal and harmful behavior can unfold on the same social media platforms we scroll through every day.
Now, livestreams can show a crime to an audience as it unfolds, reaching people across digital platforms within seconds. In some cases, the person behind the camera is not a bystander or a journalist, but the person committing the crime.
And the issue goes beyond physical violence. Harassment, racism, homophobia, sexism and other forms of abuse and discrimination can also become content, sometimes presented as jokes, entertainment or simply “part of the internet.”
When this kind of conduct is repeatedly exposed to audiences, it can begin to appear less shocking and more ordinary. Over time, that familiarity may contribute to a sense of impunity, making harmful behavior seem like something that can happen online without serious consequences.
The pursuit of viewership
Social media runs on attention. Views, comments, shares and followers determine how far content travels, while something unusual, shocking or controversial can attract an audience almost instantly.
Livestreams make that dynamic even more visible. People can react, comment and share while an event is still unfolding, and the person streaming can see those reactions in real time. The audience response therefore becomes part of the experience itself.
This dynamic can be seen in cases where people record their own illegal or antisocial behavior. Criminologists Ajay Sandhu and Daniel Trottier examined what they call the “criminal selfie”, referring to images or livestreams produced by people who are aware that they are documenting their own transgressive behavior. The researchers identified different motivations behind these recordings, including self-presentation, provocation, personal grievances and communication with an audience.
That does not mean that every crime broadcast online is an attempt to gain followers. Motivations can vary considerably. What livestreaming changes is the proximity between the person behind the camera and the people watching.
Crime as content
Once a crime becomes part of a livestream, it can take on a different meaning for the people watching it. The act itself remains a crime, but the way it is presented can make it look more like entertainment, a joke, a challenge or simply another piece of content moving through a feed.
When violence, harassment or discriminatory behavior repeatedly appear in spaces associated with entertainment, they can become familiar enough to seem ordinary. The attention surrounding the content may also shift toward the performance itself, rather than the harm taking place.
This can contribute to a sense of impunity. When harmful acts are presented as content and continue to receive attention without an immediate visible consequence, they may appear less serious than they actually are. The screen can create the impression that there is little separating a criminal act from the rest of the material in a social media feed.
In Brazil, the group known as the “gangue da bicicleta” became associated with livestreaming cellphone thefts on social media. Members openly recorded the crimes, sometimes showing their own faces, while profiles connected to the group gained thousands of followers. By exposing their identities and actions so openly, the group created an appearance of impunity , as if the possibility of being recognized or punished was not enough to stop them from turning the crimes into content.
The sense of impunity
One factor that can contribute to harmful behavior online is the perception that consequences are distant. Behind a screen, people may feel less exposed than they would in person, particularly when they believe their identity or actions are difficult to trace.
Psychologist John Suler described this dynamic through the concept of the “online disinhibition effect,” arguing that anonymity, invisibility and physical distance can influence the way people behave online.
Livestreams can intensify some of these dynamics. A person can assault someone, make a racist remark or harass another individual while surrounded by an audience that exists primarily through a screen. There is no immediate physical confrontation with the people watching, and legal consequences rarely occur at the same moment as the act.
That does not mean everyone who commits a crime online believes they will get away with it. But when consequences feel distant and attention is immediate, the possibility of punishment can seem less urgent than the reaction happening in front of the camera.
Repeated exposure to this kind of content may reinforce that perception. The danger, however, goes beyond normalization. A sense of impunity can potentially lower the perceived barrier to harmful behavior, making someone more willing to cross a line when the consequences feel distant or abstract.
The role of the platforms
Platforms already have rules against violent and harmful content. YouTube, for example, prohibits violent material intended to shock viewers and specifically restricts footage recorded by perpetrators during major violent events. Its policies apply to livestreams as well as recorded videos.
The difficulty is dealing with harmful content while it is still happening. A broadcast can be reported or removed, but viewers may have already watched it, recorded it or shared it elsewhere.
The issue became particularly visible in Brazil with Discord. In August 2026, Brazil’s National Data Protection Authority (ANPD) ordered the platform to suspend its Go Live feature and other real-time video functions. The decision followed an investigation into the protection of children and adolescents, after the agency found evidence that Discord was being repeatedly used in cases involving violence, harassment, self-harm and the inducement or incitement of suicide.
The case is different from a livestreamed robbery, but it illustrates the broader difficulty of moderating content in real time. Platforms have to identify what is happening while the broadcast is still underway, often before there is enough context to determine whether content violates their rules or requires intervention.
Livestreaming therefore changes not only how harmful acts are seen, but also how quickly they can become public, interactive and potentially rewarding for the person broadcasting them. The combination of immediate attention, audience participation and delayed consequences can create an environment in which criminal or abusive behavior is not only witnessed, but transformed into content.
The question, then, is not simply whether crime has moved onto social media. It is whether the logic of the livestream — where attention is immediate, audiences are constantly present and content competes to become more visible — is changing the way harmful behavior is performed, perceived and normalized online.
————————
The article above was edited by Ana Julia Galhardo.
Liked this type of content? Check Her Campus Cásper Líbero home page for more!