Unethical but not illegal! A critical look at two-sided disinformation platforms: Justifications, critique, and a way forward

Abstract

Crowdsourced disinformation represents a two-sided-market model wherein a platform organizer orchestrates the interaction between disinformation requesters and crowdworkers for a fee. Academic research and industry reports demonstrate that the disinformation business is thriving and that its consequences can be severe; however, research on this topic has focused mainly on developing technical methods to detect disinformation, while leaving the social aspects of the phenomenon unaddressed. In particular, very little is known about the discursive tactics that platforms apply to justify disinformation-service offerings such that these appear acceptable to potential customers. Taking a critical approach to the topic, the paper examines how platform organizers justify their disinformation services and to what extent the justifications given are valid. These questions are addressed via a unique dataset from 10 crowdsourcing platforms specializing in social-media–based reputation management. Drawing on the lens of accounts, the analysis suggests that these platforms employ six means of justification for persuasion purposes: the “claim of entitlement,” “defense of the necessity,” the “claim of ubiquity,” “language sanitization,” “appeal to professionalism,” and “appeal to codified rules.” Critical discourse analysis scrutinizing these accounts against the validity claims of comprehensibility, truth, sincerity, and legitimacy indicates that they cannot be considered valid. The paper discusses the implications of the findings and offers several recommendations designed for improving the status quo.