Predators in Plain Sight

How long do you think it takes to find cyber predator activities on the surface web?

Beginning from a brand-new Facebook account, I performed an experiment.

The answer? Less than three minutes.

Statistically Speaking…

In the past year…

At least 1/10 young people experience cybergrooming victimization ^[1]
20% of people between the ages of 5-14 reported contact with a cybergroomer in the past year^[1]
When assessed globally, between 10.4 – 10.9% of surveyed individuals responded that encountered cybergrooming activity “once a year”; 10.8% responded “once a month”; 10.8% responded “once a month”; 7.6% responded “several times a week”.^[1]

Sources

[1] Schittenhelm, C., Kops, M., Moosburner, M., Fischer, S. M., & Wachs, S. (2024). Cybergrooming Victimization Among Young People: A Systematic Review of Prevalence Rates, Risk Factors, and Outcomes. Adolescent Research Review, 10, 169–200. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-024-00248-w
Links to an external site.

Recent Trends

A 2023 study found that 62% of online groomers use multiple social media platforms to target victims, increasing contact frequency ^[2]
The number of young people who have been promised rewards in exchange for photos or videos of themselves has increased ^[1]
The number of young people who have been approached online by strangers with unwanted sexual solicitations has increased from 14.1% (2014)to 47% (2022) ^[1]
Between 13% – 19% of young people age 10-17 have experienced online sexual solicitation^[3]
Although 8% of children aged 8–11 and 18% of those aged 12–15 who go online and acknowledge exposure to sexually offensive content report that they “know the sorts of actions they should avoid online, they do not necessarily act accordingly”^[4]

Sources

[2] Tan, M., Harrington, A., & Hoffman, L. (2026, February 12). Online Grooming Statistics Statistics: Market Data Report 2025. Worldmetrics.org. https://worldmetrics.org/online-grooming-statistics/

[3] Whittle, H., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C., Beech, A., & Collings, G. (2013). A review of online grooming: Characteristics and concerns. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(1), 62–70. ScienceDirect. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.09.003
Links to an external site.

[4] Lorenzo-Dus, N., Izura, C., & Pérez-Tattam, R. (2016). Understanding grooming discourse in computer-mediated environments. Discourse, Context & Media, 12(1), 40–50. ScienceDirect. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2016.02.004
Links to an external site.

Big Numbers, Big Problems

In 2023. the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported an 80% increase in online grooming activity ^[4]
In 2025 the FBI released a Public Safety Announcement concerning the activity of the “764 Discord cult”, in which members of the online server were encouraged to engage in self-harm and sharing of inappropriate materials, later used for blackmail ^[5]
78% of parents do not know how to identify signs of online grooming in their children, according to a 2023 survey by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) ^[2]
Only 12% of online grooming cases are reported to authorities, with 63% remaining unreported due to fear of retaliation, per a 2022 UNICEF report

Sources

[4] NewsNation. (2023, March 19). FBI reported 80% increase in online grooming activity, these are the signs to look for | NewsNation. Youtu.be; Google.https://youtu.be/kfFglUd-5N0?si=jtnoOC1VT8rhJcxVLinks to an external site.

[5] Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2025, March 6). Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) | Violent Online Networks Target Vulnerable and Underage Populations Across the United States and Around the Globe. Ic3.Gov. https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2025/PSA250306
Links to an external site.

The Trust-Development Process

Characteristics of Online Grooming ^[3]

Research into online grooming as a phenomenon has often been studied in relation to or as an extension of offline grooming. However, a 2016 study examined three different models of grooming, both offline and online, and found that the approach of online groomers significantly differs from that of offline groomers.

The study also found that online groomers likely use more direct means of sexual solicitation than offline groomers and assessed their victims’ risk-taking levels differently. Online groomers primarily achieved their ends using only speech acts. Deceptive trust building is paramount to and can be sexually gratifying for the groomer in and of itself. The trust building process encompasses three main steps:

Access

Predators may use slang, abbreviation, net speak, and emoticons to blend in with the social group of their intended target

Entrapment

The predator engages in deceptive trust building with their intended victim and furthers their aim with two strategies: isolation (both physical and mental) and approach

Approach

The final phase of the entrapment process; the groomer attempts to meet their victim in order to abuse them

Offline child predators have been described by studies as “lacking in social adeptness”. Many of them also suffer from psychiatric or personality and substance abuse disorders. In comparison, online groomers invest significantly in relational work and are quite conscious of how they are presenting to the victim. Because online groomers employ a variety of strategies and prioritize approachability and deceptive relationships, it can be challenging to catch them early, especially with non-human moderation systems.