The sexist website reappears on Telegram after being shut down in 2025: stolen photos and videos of women shared. 12,000 subscribers in a few days

The Phica community did not disappear after its original website was closed in 2025. It resurfaced on Telegram, where users could gather and exchange content again. This matters because moving to another service can allow harmful material to continue circulating after a website is seized or shut down.

The reports describe a new channel, group, or chat linked to Phica. It contained stolen photos and videos of women, including intimate images. One report says the new community reached 12,000 subscribers in only a few days. Other reports mention more than 11,000 members and growth that doubled from day to day.

The current reality is that closure of one online space did not end the activity. Further action would need to address the new Telegram presence and the distribution of the stolen material. The article does not state what happened next.

A Telegram group is a shared online conversation where members can receive and, depending on the settings, post messages and media. A Telegram channel is mainly a broadcasting space, where administrators publish content for subscribers. Both formats can gather large audiences quickly, which makes them powerful tools for distributing photos and videos.

For example, a person could upload a photo or video to a group, where members can view it and possibly pass it on. In a channel, administrators can post the material once for many subscribers. Notifications, forwarding, and reposting can help content travel rapidly between users and spaces.

That reach can be useful for legitimate communication, but it also increases the harm when material is stolen. The Phica reports describe a Telegram channel, group, or chat where stolen photos and videos of women were shared with thousands of subscribers. Telegram's exact settings and permissions determine who can post and who can see content.

The community grew with striking speed. One report states that it attracted 12,000 subscribers in a few days. Other headlines describe more than 11,000 subscribers and say that the number doubled from day to day. The figures show how quickly a new online space can become large.

The mechanism was a new Telegram channel, group, or chat connected with Phica. Once the space existed, users could join and receive or share posts. The reports say that the content included stolen photos and videos of women, including intimate images. That combination of easy access and a rapidly growing audience made the situation especially serious.

The article gives no later membership figure or final outcome. It does show that closing the original website did not prevent a new community from gathering. The reported growth also suggests that rapid migration can make intervention more difficult while harmful content is being redistributed.

When intimate photos or videos are shared without permission, the people shown lose control over deeply private material. They may face humiliation, anxiety, harassment, threats, or damage to relationships and work. The harm can continue because digital files are easily copied, forwarded, and reposted. Removing one upload may not remove every copy.

The Phica reports provide a concrete example. They describe photos and videos stolen from women, including intimate images, then shared in a Telegram space. The audience grew to more than 11,000 people, with one report giving a figure of 12,000 subscribers in a few days. The scale can multiply the distress for those affected.

The immediate consequence is unwanted exposure. Longer term, victims may struggle to regain privacy because the material can move between groups and platforms. The article does not describe individual victims' experiences or legal outcomes, but the reported mass sharing clearly involves a serious invasion of personal privacy.

Non-consensual intimate-image sharing occurs when someone distributes or makes available a private sexual photo or video without the depicted person's informed permission. The key issue is consent to the distribution, not simply whether the person once created or sent the image. Sharing a private image by choice means the person knowingly decides who receives it and for what purpose.

For example, someone might voluntarily send an intimate image to one trusted person. That recipient does not automatically have permission to publish it in a Telegram group. In the Phica case, reports describe photos and videos as stolen, then shared through a new Telegram community. The reported audience reached thousands.

Consent can also be limited. Permission to send an image privately is not permission to repost it publicly or distribute it widely. The article does not discuss specific legal definitions, which can vary by country. Its central fact is clear: the reported images were stolen and shared without the women's consent.

Online communities can move because the internet is made of many separate services. A website closure or seizure affects that site, but it does not automatically remove related accounts, groups, or channels on another platform. Users can create a new space, invite former members, and continue communicating elsewhere.

The Phica reports describe exactly this pattern. After the original website was shut down in 2025, a new Telegram channel, group, or chat appeared. It shared stolen photos and videos of women. The new community then grew rapidly, reaching 12,000 subscribers in a few days according to one report, while other reports counted more than 11,000.

This makes enforcement and moderation harder. Action may need to follow the community across services and identify the specific accounts or material involved. The article confirms the move from the closed site to Telegram, but it does not explain who created the new space or how members were invited.

These protections work together. Consent sets the basic boundary: a private image should not be distributed without the depicted person's permission. Privacy rights recognize the person's control over personal material. Laws can define offences and support investigations. Platforms can apply their rules by removing content, restricting accounts, and responding to reports or official requests.

The Phica case shows two parts of this system. The original website was shut down in 2025, and reports describe its seizure or closure. Yet a new Telegram space appeared and shared stolen photos and videos of women. This example shows why action must address both the original service and replacement channels.

Effective prevention requires continued reporting, investigation, and moderation after a takedown. It also requires attention to copies and reposts across groups and platforms. The article does not describe Telegram's specific response, individual investigations, or legal proceedings. It does show that one closure alone did not stop the community's reported activity.