A gangrape video, a viral phrase, and the internet we live with
In November, a video of a gangrape in Bangladesh started spreading online. The clip, less than a minute long, appeared to show a sexual assault taking place in an open area. At one point, a perpetrator can be heard uttering a short phrase, spoken casually amid laughter. As the video went viral, those words began appearing across social media platforms, often without reference to the incident itself.
Over time, it became an online trend.
Dismislab is withholding the exact phrase to prevent its further spread and to protect the survivor. However, for context, the term essentially refers to the survivor’s private part, where the perpetrators sadistically threatened to apply sand as she cried in pain.
On the internet, as it spread, parts of the video were repeatedly reused. Its audio, short lines of dialogue, and visuals appeared in edited clips and short videos on Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, and X. Some posts promoted the incident itself or criticized the response of authorities. Others used the same material for entertainment. The phrase gradually turned into a hashtag to attract followers, reach and engagement.
By late November, so many people were searching for the phrase on Google that it began trending in search results. Google Trends data show a sharp rise in searches followed by sustained interest over several weeks. The search terms show that many users were looking for the video itself, not details about the case.
Between November 10 and 27, Dismislab documented nearly 600 videos and over 1,400 comments, and examined how the footage of a sexual violence traveled online, how users engaged with it, and how platform safeguards repeatedly failed to slow or contain its spread. According to the analysis, on Facebook, roughly 65 percent of the commenters actively promoted or sought links to the video, while many resorted to mockery and victim-blaming. On other platforms, roughly two-thirds of the documented videos reused the original footage or audio without meaningful blurring or safeguards.
Experts caution that turning a survivor’s trauma into something that is searched for and circulated carries consequences. Repeated exposure to sexual violence, particularly when reframed as humor or spectacle, can normalize harm and intensify secondary victimization. For survivors, each replay can function as a continuation of the original assault. For platforms, the episode exposes how easily policies designed to protect users can be bypassed when circulation outpaces accountability.
The incident behind the video and the viral phrase
On November 22, a video criticizing the interim government over law and order and condemning a rape incident first came to Dismislab’s attention. The clip, less than a minute long, appeared to show two men sexually assaulting a woman in an open area. At one point, a perpetrator can be heard uttering a two-word phrase as others laugh. His words would later circulate widely online, and become viral. When researchers first encountered the video, however, its origin and context were unclear.
To verify the incident, Dismislab researchers conducted reverse-image searches using multiple keyframes from the footage and searched for relevant keywords associated with the clip. The event could not be immediately confirmed. The following day, however, several media outlets published reports (1, 2, 3), providing critical context. According to those reports, a tenth-grade student had been gangraped in April in a deserted char area of Shibganj, in Chapainawabganj district. The assault had been recorded by the perpetrators, and the video later surfaced on social media in early November.
The reports further stated that on November 10, the victim’s mother filed a case with Shibganj Police Station, naming three suspects. Police arrested two of the accused on the same day. Despite the arrests, the video continued to circulate widely on social media.
For further confirmation, Dismislab contacted the investigation officer assigned to the case. Inspector (Investigation) S. M. Shakil Hasan of Shibganj Police Station confirmed that the viral video was from the same incident, which took place on April 6. He said the perpetrators had recorded the video during the assault and had threatened the victim in various ways for an extended period afterward. When the video was eventually released online, the victim’s mother filed the case.
Shakil Hasan also confirmed that the two arrested individuals gave confessional statements before a court under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He added that the authorities had written to the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission to take steps to remove the video from social media platforms.
But, it went viral
Using the same phrase, researchers tracked the video’s spread across platforms between November 10 and November 27. During that period, 219 related posts were identified on Facebook, alongside 100 relevant videos on YouTube and 101 on TikTok. Over the same timeframe, two videos and one related post were also found on X.
Across platforms, the video circulated in different forms, reflecting both varying levels of moderation and distinct patterns of reuse.
On Facebook, about 38 percent of posts reused the original video or audio, fully or in part, without masking, often alongside links directing viewers to Telegram channels where the unedited footage could be found. In reels and short videos, the sound was layered over facial expressions, skits, or unrelated visuals, with captions and comments filled with laughing emojis and slang that reframed the material as entertainment rather than evidence.
On YouTube, 60 of the 100 identified videos contained visuals or audio from the original footage, including one clear, complete copy uploaded without any warning or flag under YouTube’s Community Guidelines. The remaining 40 referenced the incident through the same phrase in titles or descriptions, while some creators incorporated the audio into vlogs or commentary.
On TikTok, the proportion of videos containing original material was higher: 74 percent of the documented videos included elements of the original content, most often the audio. Several edited versions were found, but no video appeared to be identical to the original footage. The remaining 26 percent of the TikTok videos were related to the incident, but without using the original visuals or sound. One video carried a “sensitive content” label and contained only the audio.
On X, two videos identified during the same period contained the entirely original footage, but with sensitive-content warnings. The videos remained fully accessible, allowing viewers to watch the content in its entirety by dismissing the notice.
Dismislab also traced the video to multiple pornographic websites.
A senior official of the Cyber Police Center (CPC) under the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the Bangladesh Police told Dismislab that when such videos are circulated on social media, law enforcement agencies typically report the matter to the BTRC; and the BTRC then takes steps to have the content removed.
Explaining the difficulty of removing the video, Lieutenant Colonel Muhammad Rasheduzzaman, Director (Systems and Services) at BTRC said that when the same video or audio is repeatedly downloaded, edited, and reuploaded, each version generates a new link and a different digital signature. “As a result,” he added, “multiple versions of the same content spread across platforms as separate links. This often makes it difficult for automated detection systems used by social media companies to identify and block the content consistently.”
Packaging a crime for engagement
Facebook being the most widely used social media platform in Bangladesh, the 219 posts identified there were selected for deeper analysis. Within the dataset, the earliest identifiable instance of the video appeared on November 11, the day after the victim’s mother filed a case against the perpetrators.
From that point onward, as the posts multiplied, the content evolved. Some users uploaded the original video in full or in part. Others edited the footage, blurring portions of the visuals while leaving the audio intact. In many cases, the audio alone was extracted and reused as background sound for reels featuring unrelated images or performances. The line spoken by the perpetrator continued to function as a recognizable marker, allowing users to locate the video without naming it directly.
For example, on November 20, a Facebook user posted an edited version of the original video, overlaying the clip with text and emojis. The caption instructed users to follow the account and send a message, while his comment directed them to a TikTok profile and asked for screenshots in exchange for access. Parts of the visuals were blurred, but the audio remained intact. By the time of writing, the post had been viewed more than 170,000 times, drawing over 200 comments and more than 1,500 reactions, many of them requesting the video. The same version later circulated across multiple profiles on Facebook and TikTok, often without any community-guideline warnings.
Another user posted a six-second reel showing a person laughing and saying, “Mama *** [the phrase from the perpetrator], what does it mean, bro? It’s totally making things intense, bro.” The caption reproduced the same phrase, accompanied by ‘laughing’ and ‘cool’ emojis. The reel was viewed more than 150,000 times and received over 1,000 reactions and more than 350 comments.
Another reel, 15 seconds long, reused a remix of the same audio but layered it with background music and a sexually-charged dialogue of actor Monowar Hossain Dipjol, who is widely known for portraying villainous roles in films. Text written on the video included a plea from the victim, while the caption asked, “Who has seen this incident?” The reel was viewed more than 100,000 times and drew more than 900 reactions and 400 comments.
Only 11 users were found to express condemnation or outrage. Some of these posts framed the audio as evidence, although its explicit reuse exposed the survivor to further abuse. In one such example, posted by a user named “Naim Hub,” a person appears on camera stating, “We live in such a society where our mothers and sisters are not safe. You will understand just by hearing the words above.” Immediately afterward, the sensitive audio from the original video plays.
“Yunus has finished the country through rape, looting, extortion, and murder. Where is the safety of our mothers and sisters today? Are these the things that are happening every day? Watching such videos is painful,” wrote another Facebook user and shared the original video without blurring the content. The post drew more than 6,000 views.
‘Brother, give me the link’
To examine how social media users responded to the viral content, Dismislab analyzed 1,406 unique comments posted beneath the 219 Facebook posts. Reply comments within each thread were excluded from the analysis to focus on primary user responses.
Roughly one in three commenters actively promoted the video or scenes from the gangrape by sharing, offering, or directing others to links where the original content could be accessed. Many of these comments pointed to Telegram channels or external websites. One comment read, “Those who need the full link, click below,” followed by a Telegram group link and an icon indicating where to look. Others indicated that the video had been uploaded on Facebook or explained how it could be located. In several cases, commenters invited users to contact them privately, writing phrases such as, “Those who need it, inbox,” or asked others to follow a TikTok account or Facebook page in exchange for access to the video.
Another third of the commenters actively sought the content, frequently referring to the viral keyword associated with the video and often doing so in a mocking or casual tone. Many explicitly asked to see the original footage, leaving comments such as, “Can you give the full video,” “Brother, give the link,” “Someone give the video,” or “Yes, need it.” Alongside these requests, some commenters treated the incident as a source of amusement, posting reactions such as “Hahaha,” “lol,” or “dekhsi,” accompanied by laughing emojis. In a smaller but notable subset of comments, 90 users expressed sexualized approval of the video through praise or explicit remarks, further reinforcing the framing of the assault as consumable content rather than as a serious crime.
Among the comments, 39 placed responsibility for the assault on the survivor rather than the perpetrators. Several framed the crime as a consequence of the victims’ behavior, invoking moral or religious ideas, with one comment stating, “If the girl were good, she wouldn’t have gone with so many boys.” Others called for punitive action against the survivors themselves. In some cases, the language escalated into dehumanization, with victims targeted by sexualized slurs while the attackers were praised as “Bagher baccha” (tiger’s cub), reframing the violence as dominance rather than a crime. One comment reads: “The girl’s desire to roam naked with guys is now fulfilled”.
One in ten expressed protest and sympathy toward the victim. Some commenters described feeling distressed after seeing the video. One wrote, “After seeing this, I felt very bad. The girl was helpless.” Another commented, “Watching the video makes me want to cry, and those who are desperate to get this video are not human,” invoking religious language to express anger at the lack of accountability.
In contrast, other users who appeared similarly disturbed by the video expressed their outrage through abusive language. Rather than focusing on the perpetrators alone, these comments targeted the attackers’ mothers, wives, and sisters, using slurs and derogatory expressions and redirecting hostility toward women unrelated to the crime.
Trending on Google search
Data from Google Trends offers a view into how the video moved beyond social media and into public search behavior. Rather than capturing opinion or sentiment, the tool reflects moments when large numbers of users search for the same terms within a short period, often in response to a viral event. In this case, the search data shows how fragments of the video translated into concentrated bursts of online attention.
Search interest related to the video began at a low but steady level in mid-November, before rising sharply around November 18. The surge continued for roughly a week and then declined rapidly toward the end of the month. Through December, search activity settled into a lower, plateaued range, with modest increases around December 5 and December 23 that did not approach the intensity of the initial peak.
The Trends data also identified several “breakout” queries—terms that experienced growth of more than 5,000 percent compared with earlier periods. These included the phrase spoken in the video and variations explicitly seeking links to the footage. The nature of these queries suggests that users were searching for access to the video itself rather than for general information about the crime. In Google Trends, such breakout patterns typically signal a short-lived but highly concentrated viral moment, in which a narrow set of terms dominates search activity.
Geographically, the searches were not evenly distributed. Interest was highest in the Rajshahi and Khulna divisions, with related topics pointing to Chapainawabganj District, where the assault took place. The timing of the surge, the language of the queries, and their regional concentration indicate that the spike reflected the rapid circulation of a widely shared digital clip, rather than sustained public engagement with the case itself.
Violation of platform policy and local laws
Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, and X all prohibit sexual exploitation, image-based sexual abuse, and sensitive media, including reused or derivative material such as edited clips and audio, although enforcement remains challenging and inconsistent. For example, some original videos were blurred or flagged, but access was often possible with a single tap. Edited versions and audio-only remixes circulated without labels or restrictions across platforms, indicating inconsistent application of the rules.
These practices are also in conflict with Bangladesh’s legal framework. The Pornography Control Act, 2012 criminalizes the production, possession, and distribution of pornographic and non-consensual sexual content. The Penal Code, 1860 (section 293 & 294) prohibits the circulation and public display of obscene material. Laws addressing sexual violence further recognize that recording and spreading such content constitutes secondary victimization. The continued spread of videos, edits, and reused audio reflects both weak platform enforcement and clear violations of domestic law.
Quazi Mahfujul Hoque Supan, an associate professor at the Department of Law at Dhaka University, said that re-sharing or disseminating such videos constitutes a criminal offence both under the Pornography Control Act, 2012, and the Cyber Security Ordinance, 2025.
Why, then, does such content continue to circulate so widely? Professor Kamal Chowdhury, who teaches at the Department of Clinical Psychology at Dhaka University, said that some individuals consume this material out of curiosity, while others may derive pleasure from witnessing such scenes, which he described as a form of psychological deviation. Individuals who grow up under strict discipline or experience physical abuse in childhood, he said, may gradually begin to perceive violence as normal. Over time, this can evolve into a sense of gratification in observing another person’s suffering – an impulse that often intensifies when women are involved.
Methodology
Dismislab analyzed the circulation of a gangrape video on social media between November 10 and November 27, 2025. To track how the video spread, keyword searches were conducted across Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, and X. After screening, 219 Facebook posts, 100 YouTube videos, and 101 TikTok videos were analyzed, with Facebook selected for deeper review due to its widespread use in Bangladesh. Posts were examined to determine whether they reused the original video or audio, linked to external platforms, or repackaged the material for engagement, entertainment, or protest. Audience response was assessed through analysis of 1,406 unique Facebook comments, which were categorized by their dominant behavior, including sharing or seeking the video, humor, victim-blaming, condemnation, and others. Google Trends data was used to examine search interest related to the viral phrase, which is withheld to avoid further harm to the survivor.
