Papers associated with Bitcoin and related topics in law: Part XXIII

This article was first published on Dr. Craig Wright’s blog, and we republished with permission from the author. Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13, Part 14, Part 15, Part 16, Part 17, Part 18, Part 19, Part 20, Part 21, and Part 22.

The articles presented in this annotated bibliography demonstrate a comprehensive argument regarding the impact of deception and misinformation in various domains, including business strategy, marketing, and digital environments. For example, Chelliah and Swamy (2018) highlight deception and lies in business strategy, emphasizing the short-term advantages they may offer but also the detrimental long-term consequences, such as damage to reputation and loss of trust. Conte de Leon et al. (2017) explore the properties and misconceptions of blockchain technology, discussing its potential application in combating digital deception. They suggest that the blockchain’s transparency and immutability can enhance the credibility and verifiability of information.

Di Domenico and Visentin (2020) focus on inappropriate content in marketing, particularly fake news, discussing the ethical implications and the importance of promoting truthful information to build trust with consumers. Further, Fraga-Lamas and Fernandez-Carames (2020) propose leveraging distributed ledger technologies, specifically blockchain technology, to combat fake news, disinformation, and deepfakes. They argue that the blockchain’s properties, such as decentralization and transparency, can enhance the trustworthiness of digital information. Next, Kamps and Kleinberg (2018) address the issue of pump-and-dump schemes in the cryptocurrency market, highlighting the fraudulent nature of such practices and the need for detection methods to protect investors and maintain market integrity.

This leads to Song et al. (2019), who investigates the impact of deceptive marketing during pseudo-product-harm crises on consumer sentiment. They find that deceptive marketing practices lead to a decline in trust and brand evaluations, highlighting the importance of transparency and ethical marketing practices. The articles examine various dimensions of deception, misinformation, and fraudulent practices. They provide insights into the consequences of such practices in different domains, propose potential solutions or technologies (e.g., blockchain technology) to combat them, and highlight the ethical considerations involved. While each article has a unique focus and scope, they contribute to a broader understanding of the challenges and potential remedies related to deception and misinformation in different contexts.

The articles under discussion encompass a large scope, and focus on deception and its implications in various domains. Chelliah and Swamy (2018) delve into business strategy, specifically examining deception and lies within this context. Conte de Leon et al. (2017) focus on the properties and misconceptions surrounding blockchain technology, aiming to shed light on this emerging field. Di Domenico and Visentin (2020) narrow their focus to marketing, delving into inappropriate content and specifically addressing the issue of fake news. Fraga-Lamas and Fernandez-Carames (2020) explore the use of distributed ledger technologies, such as blockchain technology, to combat digital deception in a broader sense. Kamps and Kleinberg (2018) zoom in on the cryptocurrency market, investigating the phenomenon of pump-and-dump schemes. Lastly, Song et al. (2019) direct their research towards the impact of deceptive marketing during pseudo-product-harm crises on consumer sentiment. Overall, each article contributes unique insights into understanding deception in its respective domain.

The articles under consideration examine deception and related issues across various domains. First, Chelliah and Swamy (2018) delve into the intricacies of deception within business strategy, emphasizing its implications in this context. Next, Conte de Leon et al. (2017) and Fraga-Lamas and Fernandez-Carames (2020) explore the implications of deception in digital environments, with the former focusing on the misconceptions surrounding blockchain technology and the latter discussing the use of distributed ledger technologies to combat digital deception. Next, Di Domenico and Visentin (2020) narrow their focus to the marketing domain, specifically examining problematic content, including the dissemination of fake news. Next, Kamps and Kleinberg (2018) delve into the cryptocurrency market, studying the phenomenon of pump-and-dump schemes, while Song et al. (2019) investigate the impact of deceptive marketing on consumer sentiment. Each article offers valuable insights into deception within its domain, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the subject.

Finally, ethics and the ethical implications of deception are key considerations addressed in several articles. Chelliah and Swamy (2018) and Di Domenico and Visentin (2020) explicitly discuss the ethical dimensions of deception, underscoring the importance of transparency and ethical decision-making in business strategy and marketing, respectively. They advocate for ethical practices to build trust and maintain long-term relationships with stakeholders. Fraga-Lamas and Fernandez-Carames (2020) also highlight the ethical aspects in their exploration of combating fake news and disinformation, emphasizing the need to protect individuals from the negative consequences of deceptive practices. Kamps and Kleinberg (2018) and Song et al. (2019) focus more on the impact of deceptive practices and fraudulent schemes on stakeholders, highlighting the ethical concerns arising from such practices. Together, the articles emphasize the significance of ethical considerations in addressing deception, advocating for transparency, trust-building, and responsible decision-making in various domains.

The articles collectively argue for the importance of honesty, transparency, and ethical decision-making across various domains. They underscore the negative consequences of deception, misinformation, and fraudulent practices, while also suggesting potential solutions, including blockchain technology, to combat digital deception and restore trust in information dissemination. While the articles discussed address different aspects of deception, misinformation, and fraudulent practices, they have some notable differences and similarities.

Annotated Bibliography

Chelliah, J., & Swamy, Y. (2018). Deception and lies in business strategy. Journal of Business Strategy, 39(6), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-09-2017-0135

The article by Chelliah and Swamy (2018) titled “Deception and lies in business strategy” explores the role of deception and lies in the context of business strategy. The authors delve into the various ways in which deception is employed by organizations and its potential impact on their strategic decision-making processes. The authors highlight that deception in business strategy can take different forms, such as misleading financial reporting, false promises to stakeholders, or concealing crucial information from competitors.

They emphasize that while deception may offer short-term advantages, it can have detrimental long-term consequences for organizations, including damage to reputation, legal consequences, and loss of stakeholder trust. Chelliah and Swamy (2018) also discuss the ethical implications of deception in business strategy, arguing that it goes against principles of transparency and honesty. Instead, they emphasize the importance of ethical decision-making and suggest that organizations adopt strategies based on integrity and trust. Unfortunately, companies such as “Google and Facebook have long argued that they are providers of neutral platforms for the exchange of ideas as distinct from being publishers (Chelliah & Swamy, 2018, p. 35) while actively interacting with the content of advertising material.

In conclusion, the article by Chelliah and Swamy (2018) sheds light on the role of deception and lies in business strategy. It highlights the potential risks and ethical concerns associated with such practices and encourages organizations to prioritize transparency and honesty in their strategic decision-making processes.

Conte de Leon, D., Stalick, A. Q., Jillepalli, A. A., Haney, M. A., & Sheldon, F. T. (2017). Blockchain: Properties and misconceptions. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 11(3), 286–300. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-12-2017-034
The article by Conte de Leon et al.(2017) titled “Blockchain: Properties and misconceptions” explores the properties and common misconceptions surrounding blockchain technology. The authors aim to clarify the fundamental characteristics of blockchain and dispel any misunderstandings associated with it.

Conte de Leon et al.(2017) begin by explaining the key properties of blockchain, such as decentralization, immutability, transparency, and security. They emphasize that blockchain is a distributed ledger technology that enables secure and transparent transactions without intermediaries. They also discuss the concept of consensus algorithms and their role in maintaining the integrity of the blockchain network.

Additionally, the article addresses several misconceptions about blockchain technology. The authors address the misconception that blockchain and cryptocurrency are synonymous, highlighting that while blockchain is the underlying technology behind cryptocurrencies, its applications extend far beyond digital currencies. They also address misconceptions about blockchain scalability, energy consumption, and privacy concerns.

Overall, the article provides an overview of the properties of blockchain technology and addresses common misconceptions surrounding its implementation. Unfortunately, the authors mistakingly misrepresent a Blockchain system as “[a]n emergent ledger or blockchain, in a DLS, is the resulting ledger for which the majority of the users on the network agree at any given time” (Conte de Leon et al., 2017, pp. 291–292). The paper serves as a resource for individuals seeking to understand the fundamental aspects of blockchain and its potential applications beyond ‘cryptocurrencies’, but it needs to be analyzed based on the nature of the system and not common misperceptions.

Di Domenico, G., & Visentin, M. (2020). Fake news or true lies? Reflections about problematic contents in marketing. International Journal of Market Research, 62(4), 409–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785320934719

The article by Di Domenico and Visentin (2020) titled “Fake news or true lies? Reflections about problematic contents in marketing” explores the issue of inappropriate content, specifically fake news, in marketing. The authors delve into the implications and challenges posed by the spread of fake news and discuss the responsibility of marketers in addressing this issue. Di Domenico and Visentin (2020) highlight the rise of fake news in the digital age and its potential impact on consumer behavior and decision-making. They argue that spreading misinformation can harm society and trust in marketing communications. They also discuss the role of social media platforms in disseminating fake news and the challenges they face in tackling this problem.

Di Domenico and Visentin (2020) emphasize the ethical considerations for marketers when dealing with inappropriate content. They stress the importance of promoting truthful, accurate information to build consumer trust. They also suggest that marketers should proactively address and counter fake news through transparency, fact-checking, and responsible content creation. While Di Domenico and Visentin (2020, p. 410) discuss completely fake news, the authors also examine partially correct information where “there is disinformation rooted in a truthful reality but distorted to the point that the core facts are no longer factual”.

In conclusion, the article highlights the significance of addressing problematic content, particularly fake news, in marketing. It emphasizes the ethical responsibilities of marketers in promoting truthful information and provides insights on strategies to combat the spread of fake news in the digital landscape.

Fraga-Lamas, P., & Fernandez-Carames, T. M. (2020). Fake News, Disinformation, and Deepfakes: Leveraging Distributed Ledger Technologies and Blockchain to Combat Digital Deception and Counterfeit Reality. IT Professional, 22(2), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2020.2977589

The article by Fraga-Lamas and Fernandez-Carames (2020) titled “Fake News, Disinformation, and Deepfakes: Leveraging Distributed Ledger Technologies and Blockchain to Combat Digital Deception and Counterfeit Reality” explores the use of distributed ledger technologies, specifically blockchain, in addressing the challenges posed by fake news, disinformation, and deepfakes. Fraga-Lamas and Fernandez-Carames (2020, p. 54) note, “[t]he term “deepfakes” referred originally to manipulated videos with face-swapping techniques”. The paper partially captures a means of determining this information but misses how multiple sources can be created simultaneously when many Blockchain systems exist.

Fraga-Lamas and Fernandez-Carames (2020) highlight the growing concerns surrounding the spreading of false information and manipulated media in the digital realm. They discuss the potential consequences of these deceptive practices on society, including the erosion of trust, manipulation of public opinion, and threats to democracy.

Fraga-Lamas and Fernandez-Carames propose that distributed ledger technologies, such as blockchain, can be leveraged as a potential solution to combat digital deception. They explain how the properties of blockchain, including decentralization, immutability, and transparency, can enhance the credibility and verifiability of information. They suggest that blockchain can be used to create decentralized fact-checking systems, provide transparency in creating and disseminating content, and enable users to verify the authenticity of information and media. The article also addresses the challenges and limitations of implementing blockchain-based solutions, such as scalability, privacy concerns, and the need for collaboration among stakeholders.

In conclusion, the authors advocate for adopting distributed ledger technologies, particularly blockchain, to combat fake news, disinformation, and deepfakes. They highlight the potential benefits of blockchain in enhancing the trustworthiness and reliability of digital information and emphasize the need for further research and collaboration to fully realize its potential in addressing the challenges of digital deception.

Kamps, J., & Kleinberg, B. (2018). To the moon: Defining and detecting cryptocurrency pump-and-dumps. Crime Science, 7(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-018-0093-5

The article by Kamps and Kleinberg (2018) titled “To the moon: Defining and detecting cryptocurrency pump-and-dumps” focuses on the phenomenon of pump-and-dump schemes in the context of cryptocurrencies. The authors aim to define and detect these schemes to shed light on the manipulative practices prevalent in the cryptocurrency market. As Kamps and Kleinberg (2018, p. 2) discuss, “[a] pump-and-dump scheme is a type of fraud in which the offenders accumulate a commodity over a period, then artificially inflate the price through means of spreading misinformation (pumping), before selling off what they bought to unsuspecting buyers at the higher price (dumping).”

The authors begin by explaining the concept of pump-and-dump schemes, where a group of individuals artificially inflates the price of a cryptocurrency through coordinated buying, creating a hype or “pump,” and then sells their holdings at the inflated price, causing a subsequent price crash or “dump”. Next, they highlight the fraudulent nature of these schemes and the negative impact they have on investors and the overall market.
Kamps and Kleinberg (2020) propose a method for detecting pump-and-dump schemes by analyzing trading data and identifying abnormal trading patterns associated with such schemes. They outline a framework that combines statistical analysis and machine learning techniques to detect suspicious trading activities. The article also discusses the challenges in detecting and prosecuting pump-and-dump schemes due to the decentralized and anonymous nature of the cryptocurrency market. Finally, the authors emphasize the importance of regulatory measures and increased awareness to mitigate the risks associated with these manipulative practices.

In conclusion, the article provides insights into the phenomenon of pump-and-dump schemes in the cryptocurrency market. Furthermore, Kamps and Kleinberg (2018) propose a detection framework and highlight the need for regulatory actions to combat these fraudulent activities and protect investors in the evolving landscape of cryptocurrencies.

Song, R., Kim, H., Lee, G. M., & Jang, S. (2019). Does Deceptive Marketing Pay? The Evolution of Consumer Sentiment Surrounding a Pseudo-Product-Harm Crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(3), 743–761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3720-2

The article by Song et al. (2019) titled “Does Deceptive Marketing Pay? The Evolution of Consumer Sentiment Surrounding a Pseudo-Product-Harm Crisis” investigates the impact of deceptive marketing on consumer sentiment during a pseudo-product-harm crisis. The authors aim to understand how deceptive marketing practices influence consumer perceptions and attitudes towards a brand. The study focuses on a hypothetical scenario where a brand engages in deceptive marketing, creating a perception of product harm that does not exist. The authors analyze how consumers’ sentiments evolve when faced with such deceptive practices.

The findings of the study suggest that deceptive marketing negatively affects consumer sentiment, leading to a decline in trust and brand evaluations. Initially, consumers react strongly to the perceived product harm, expressing negative sentiments. However, as more information becomes available and the deception is revealed, consumer sentiment gradually shifts towards skepticism and dissatisfaction with the brand.

The article also highlights the role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a mitigating factor. It suggests that brands with a strong CSR reputation may be able to recover and regain consumer trust more effectively compared to brands with a weaker CSR reputation. As “[o]nline chatter amplifies the negative effect of recalls on downstream sales nearly 4.5 times” (Song et al., 2019, p. 745), inaction can lead to long-term reputation costs.
In conclusion, the article demonstrates that deceptive marketing practices harm consumer sentiment. It emphasizes the importance of transparency and ethical marketing practices in building and maintaining consumer trust. The study underscores the potential long-term negative consequences of deceptive marketing, and highlights the significance of CSR in managing and recovering from pseudo-product-harm crises.

References

Chelliah, J., & Swamy, Y. (2018). Deception and lies in business strategy. Journal of Business Strategy, 39(6), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-09-2017-0135

Conte de Leon, D., Stalick, A. Q., Jillepalli, A. A., Haney, M. A., & Sheldon, F. T. (2017). Blockchain: Properties and misconceptions. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 11(3), 286–300. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-12-2017-034

Di Domenico, G., & Visentin, M. (2020). Fake news or true lies? Reflections about problematic contents in marketing. International Journal of Market Research, 62(4), 409–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785320934719

Fraga-Lamas, P., & Fernandez-Carames, T. M. (2020). Fake News, Disinformation, and Deepfakes: Leveraging Distributed Ledger Technologies and Blockchain to Combat Digital Deception and Counterfeit Reality. IT Professional, 22(2), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2020.2977589
Kamps, J., & Kleinberg, B. (2018). To the moon: Defining and detecting cryptocurrency pump-and-dumps. Crime Science, 7(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-018-0093-5

Song, R., Kim, H., Lee, G. M., & Jang, S. (2019). Does Deceptive Marketing Pay? The Evolution of Consumer Sentiment Surrounding a Pseudo-Product-Harm Crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(3), 743–761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3720-2

Watch The Bitcoin Masterclasses: Wallets and overlay services on the Bitcoin network