What percentage of people viewed CSAM?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Estimates of how many people have viewed child sexual abuse material (CSAM) differ by study and method: an Australian survey found 0.7% of people without criminal justice involvement and 1.6% of those with adult criminal-justice involvement reported intentionally viewing CSAM [1]. Other sources quantify the volume and hosting locations of CSAM rather than the percentage of people who view it — for example, 64.5% of reported CSAM websites were located in Asia in one 2022 dataset [2] and the Netherlands was reported to host “more than 60%” of Western Europe’s CSAM [3].
1. What the best population surveys say: small percentages, big caveats
The clearest population estimate in the available reporting comes from an Australian study that measured self‑reported, intentional viewing: 0.7% among people without adult criminal‑justice involvement and 1.6% among people with such involvement [1]. Those figures refer to intentionally viewing CSAM in the past year within that survey sample; they exclude respondents who answered “don’t know” or “prefer not to say,” and the report emphasizes that survey design, weighting and sensitive-question nonresponse shape the numbers [1].
2. Self‑selected and dark‑web samples give a different picture
Research based on self‑selected respondents who sought CSAM on the dark web cannot be generalized to population prevalence: a large anonymous study analyzed 2,384 respondents who actively sought CSAM on the dark web and described most as young males aged 18–34 searching material depicting girls — but that sample is explicitly of users, not of the general public [4]. Such studies illuminate user characteristics and motivations but do not yield a percentage of the overall population.
3. Reports and hashes measure material, not viewers
Many widely cited metrics describe the volume and location of CSAM content and platform reports rather than how many people view it. For example, NCMEC shared more than 9.8 million hashes with service providers to detect CSAM [5], and one dataset found 64.5% of reported CSAM websites in 2022 were located in Asia [2]. These figures show scale and distribution of content and detection efforts but do not translate directly to a population percent of viewers [5] [2].
4. Child‑first exposure and lifecycle of viewers: contested claims
Advocacy and policy documents assert further viewer‑related statistics — for instance, a joint ECLAG–DOT paper states “70% of CSAM viewers were first exposed to it when being a child” [6]. This is a striking figure with strong policy implications, but available sources do not include the underlying methodology here; the claim appears in a policy position paper rather than a peer‑reviewed population estimate, so it should be treated as an assertion tied to advocacy [6]. The reporting does not supply a comparable population‑level breakdown to confirm or refute that percentage.
5. Why percentages vary: measurement, detection and hidden populations
Measurements differ because researchers ask different questions (intentional past‑year viewing versus lifetime exposure), sample different populations (representative survey versus self‑selected dark‑web users), and because detection systems capture files and reports rather than human viewers [1] [4] [5]. Moreover, hotspots of hosting or reporting (Netherlands hosting much EU CSAM; Asia hosting most reported sites in one series) affect where material is found but not who views it [3] [2]. The literature flags a large “hidden” population of users who remain undetected by law enforcement, meaning official reports undercount viewers [4].
6. What reporters and policymakers focus on instead: content and removal
Because estimating viewer prevalence is methodologically fraught, many organizations emphasize content volume, hosting geography, reporting systems and removal: the Into the Light Index and hotlines track hosting rates and reporting per capita to prioritize enforcement and takedown, noting that changes in reports can reflect detection shifts rather than real rises or falls in material [3] [7]. NCMEC and tech partners use hash lists and CyberTipline reports to find and remove files — a focus on content infrastructure rather than direct population prevalence [5].
7. Bottom line and limits of current reporting
The most defensible, population‑level figures in the supplied sources are the Australian survey percentages (0.7% and 1.6%) for intentional viewing in that context [1]. Available sources do not mention a single, globally representative percentage of people who have viewed CSAM; other documents report user samples, hosting locations, or advocacy claims [4] [3] [6] [2]. Any headline number should specify the study, population, time frame and method because percentages differ widely by those choices [1] [4] [2].