In recent days, the YouTube video “Adultification,” published by content creator Felca, has gone far beyond his usual audience. If you haven’t seen it yet, watch it here.
The strength of the video lies in exposing a problem that has long been right under our noses and organizing it into a funnel-shaped narrative — or, in the creator’s own words, a journey “down the rabbit hole” — starting with what many might consider “normal” and descending into increasingly degrading levels, much like Dante’s circles of Hell where each layer reveals something more suffocating and sinister than the last.
At the core of the issue is that, even in the earliest layers — well before the most repugnant conduct appears — we see parents and guardians neglecting their duty of care and supervision. Under Article 13, §2, “a” of Brazil’s Penal Code, omission is criminally relevant when a person who could act — and had the legal duty to act — fails to do so.
The layers of Hell presented by Felca.
The video is structured in acts that represent different depths of the problem.
In the first layer, there is “normalized” adultification, with children reproducing the speech and postures of entrepreneurs and influencers, projecting an image of productivity and success while still in their formative years. Such behavior is often encouraged and exploited by parents seeking monetization and visibility.
The second layer addresses abusive media exposure, exemplified by children’s channels managed by family members who, in pursuit of engagement, subject the child to humiliating situations and the pressure of audiences and criticism. The problem already arises in the decision to expose the child, even when they show discomfort.
The third layer brings sexualization closer to the explicit, with reality shows and content placing teenagers in adult contexts, alcohol consumption, sexual innuendo, and cosmetic procedures, attracting audiences that include abusers. Continuous exposure works as behavioral conditioning, shaping conduct to meet external expectations.
In the fourth and most serious layer, the video reveals explicit child sexual exploitation, with cases in which parents produce and sell pornographic material involving their own children, profiting from distribution in private networks and criminal groups.
Outside these layers, but interconnecting them all, is what Felca calls the “P Algorithm”: a system that, instead of eliminating, boosts videos with adultified or sexualized children, amplifying risks and perpetuating abuse.
The “ninth layer,” not addressed by Felca.
Felca’s relevant video goes through all the layers described above, clearly showing the depth and seriousness of the problem. Even so, there is an additional layer — perhaps the darkest and most extreme of this “digital hell” — that he did not address. It concerns contexts in which multiple forms of violence against children and adolescents combine with an almost total absence of supervision and serious failures in content moderation.
A paradigmatic example is Operation “Dark Room” (2023), which revealed one of these environments.
In this case, a server on the Discord platform was run by a 19-year-old identified as “King,” who centralized criminal practices such as “virtual rape” (Art. 213, Penal Code), storage and sale of child pornographic material (Arts. 241-A and 241-B, ECA), among other related crimes. The dynamic included obtaining intimate material from teenagers and using threats to coerce them into sexual acts, broadcast live to other group members.
The episode shows that prevention cannot be limited to controlling seemingly harmless content. Communication platforms and social networks, when not monitored, can become convergence centers for serious crimes. The absence of early intervention — whether by guardians or by the companies themselves — favors the consolidation of structured exploitation networks, in which victimization is repeated and amplified by collective exposure.
The relevance of parental omission.
It is not necessary to reach the most extreme layers — where the absurd is evident and punishment unquestionable — to identify legally relevant parental omissions. In the first layers, still without physical or explicit sexual violence, concrete risks and rights violations can already be seen, as in simple unlimited and unsupervised access to social networks.
In the situations initially described, children engaged in the digital environment without mediation or filters are exposed to the dynamics and pressures of the adult world. The duty of care remains, regardless of whether the content seems harmless. Here, we may even include situations where parents allow unlimited and unsupervised access to social networks. And just because the content — or its consumption — is not explicit does not mean the duty of care ceases to exist.
As in the Divine Comedy, it is not necessary to reach the core to actually be in hell. In the adultification exposed by the video, it is not necessary to reach the deepest layers to recognize the seriousness of the parents’ omission.
The Penal Code — specifically in item “a” of §2 of Art. 13 — states that omission is criminally relevant when the omitter “has a legal duty of care, protection, or supervision.” This is where parental responsibility is inserted.
And in the context of these initial layers, the trend is that the mere permission for the child to be exposed in digital environments without any mediation or filtering by the guardian will be understood as the omission provided for in the aforementioned provision.
The Child and Adolescent Statute, in Articles 5 and 17, reinforces the duty of full protection by prohibiting any form of negligence, exploitation, or violation of fundamental rights, ensuring the preservation of children’s and adolescents’ physical, psychological, moral integrity and image.
That is precisely why the need for parental control and supervision in the virtual environment, which permeates the first layers of the “hell” described by Felca, had already been discussed at the legislative level even before his video’s repercussion.
An example is Bill No. 1052/24, which proposes to criminalize so-called “digital abandonment” — conduct by parents or guardians who fail to educate or provide assistance in internet use, putting their children’s safety at risk.
The proposal criminalizes such conduct and is based on the principle of full protection and the legal duty inherent to parental authority, recognizing that children’s vulnerability extends to the digital space and that negligence in this field may lead to criminal intervention.
Although prior to Felca’s video, the debate it sparked reinforces the relevance of initiatives like this, which seek to more decisively hold guardians accountable for omissions in the virtual environment. By showing that relevant omission can occur long before explicit crimes, the video helps such projects find greater social and political acceptance.
From this perspective, the superficial layers of the “hell” of adultification, still far from explicit sexual exploitation cases, cannot be disregarded as legally irrelevant. On the contrary, it is in them that preventive action by guardians is most effective and necessary to prevent risk progression and escalation to more serious violations.
Sharenting and the line between socially accepted exposure and rights violations.
The term “sharenting,” derived from the combination of share and parenting, describes the practice of parents or guardians posting images, videos, and information about their children’s lives on social networks. Although often motivated by affection or family record, this conduct raises relevant questions about privacy, consent, and full protection.
In the context of the initial layers described by Felca, sharenting becomes problematic when it goes beyond the limit of socially accepted exposure and enters risk zones. Apparently innocent records, when made public and without access control, can be appropriated by third parties for illicit purposes or inserted into dynamics that sexualize or ridicule the child.
The risk increases when the practice ceases to be occasional and becomes routine, turning the child into a character in a media product. Online visibility, governed by algorithms, does not differentiate benign from abusive interactions, which increases the likelihood of content reaching risky audiences.
In extreme cases, this exposure may constitute the criminally relevant omission provided for in Art. 13, §2, “a” of the Penal Code, when there is no filtering or access control. That is why sharenting requires constant reflection on the ethical and legal limits of such exposure: the line between legitimate sharing and rights violation varies according to context, the degree of visibility, and the vulnerability associated with the content.
Even before the video that crossed all digital bubbles, there were already court decisions ordering parents to cease the overexposure of their children, showing that prevention begins in the superficial layers and depends on conscious and continuous action by guardians.
Conclusion
As Felca rightly pointed out, the ideal is for children to be engaged in play, real-life experiences, and activities appropriate to their age — far from the logic of exposure and frenetic consumption on social media. This, however, is a decision within the most intimate sphere of parental authority, directly linked to how each father or mother chooses to raise their children.
What cannot be ignored is that, once the path of access to the digital environment is chosen, that access must be limited, supervised, and constantly mediated. This means knowing the platforms, monitoring interactions, restricting functionalities, and keeping an open dialogue with the child or adolescent about risks and responsibilities in internet use.
The spotlight on the situation — whether due to the social impact of Felca’s video or concrete cases such as Operation “Dark Room,” which reveal the seriousness of omissions — tends, justifiably, to make the legal treatment of those who fail in their duty of care, protection, and supervision stricter.
Parental omission in the virtual environment, previously often treated as a mere educational lapse, may come to be seen as conduct capable of generating criminal and civil liability, especially when the risk is concrete and foreseeable.
Whether out of moral prudence or legal responsibility, the message is unequivocal: the internet is not a neutral or inherently safe space, and the duty of protection begins even before the first click. Ignoring this not only exposes children and adolescents but also deprives families of the opportunity to build safer and more conscious digital relationships.
The protection begins before the first click — and, with dialogue, clear boundaries, and active presence, it is possible to transform the virtual environment from a threat into a space for learning and healthy development.
Our office remains available to guide and assist parents, guardians, and educators in adopting preventive measures and in defending the rights of children and adolescents in the digital environment.
