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

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