Article Review #2: Cultural Differences Between Counterfeit Practices and Other Online Article Review 2 Article Review #2: Cultural Differences Between Counterfeit Practices and Other Online Illicit Activities on Social Media Student Name: Zephaniah Hall School of Cybersecurity, Old Dominion University CYSE 201S: Cybersecurity and the Social Sciences Instructor Name: Diwakar Yalpi Date: Thursday April 16, 2026 Introduction\/BLUF This study examines counterfeit sales practices on Facebook Marketplace,… <\/p>\n
\nIllicit Activities on Social Media
\nStudent Name: Zephaniah Hall
\nSchool of Cybersecurity, Old Dominion University
\nCYSE 201S: Cybersecurity and the Social Sciences
\nInstructor Name: Diwakar Yalpi
\nDate: Thursday April 16, 2026
\nIntroduction\/BLUF<\/strong>
\nThis study examines counterfeit sales practices on Facebook Marketplace, comparing them with well documented forms of illicit online activity, such as online drug selling. These highlight the criminological significance of counterfeit trade on social media and call for a re-examination of how illegality is constructed, perceived and normalized in digital environments
\nRelation\/Connection to Social Science Principles<\/strong>
\nThe article implements the social science principles in multiple ways. Starting with relativism,
\nby showing how the increase of the customer to customer (c2c) relationship has increased
\nthrough various different ways but social media has increased this type of relationship. While
\nusing Parsimony and objectivity to keep the information related simplistic and focused on the
\nobjective without the promotion of anyone\u2019s point of view. With the type of information related in the article it also is using the empiricism principle and ethical neutrality as well, using research and report findings, as well as not making any assumptions but using determinism to figure out how and why these attacks are happening, and how the counterfeit and illicit activity has become so advanced to the point where it could trick victims. Questioning them very intently
\nResearch Question \/Hypothesis\/ Independent Variable\/Dependent Variable<\/strong>
\n\u25cf Research Question: How do counterfeit sellers mobilize platform affordances to construct
\nvisibility and legitimacy, compared to other illicit online activities
\n\u25cf Hypothesis: Counterfeiters\u2019 practiced could be shaped by social, cultural, and digital
\ncapital, resembling those of other online offenders.
\n\u25cf Independent Variable: Characteristics and types of criminal activity
\n\u25cf Dependent Variable: Account, activity, and semantic characteristics
\nTypes of Research Methods used<\/strong>
\nThe data methods used were mixed, with different evidences from accounts, they were able to
\ncollect the quantitative data, as well as the qualitative data and understand the nature of the
\ncounterfeit items as well as the results of a sample of the results.
\nTypes of Data Analysis used<\/strong>
\nFacebook Marketplace was used to select based on visual and textual indicators of suspected
\ncounterfeiting, and using the information to create screenshots\/images of the things that they
\nwere selling and involvements of said counterfeiting activity and products.
\nConnections to other Course Concepts<\/strong>
\nI believe that this study highlights the importance of understanding personality theories and how agreeable\/open people are to even buying off of customers to customer sites. I think that a lot of the more open and agreeable people are the ones who fall victim to the counterfeiting in attempts to maybe get new things or experience new cultures and just different things in general.
\nConnections to the Concerns or contributions of Marginalized Groups<\/strong>
\nI think that the groups which should be the most concerned are the ones who shop and browse these type of sites, instead of buying from a particular store (from them directly). A lot of people participate in the buying and selling of second hand items\/products and are the main ones experiencing the phishing of counterfeit products.
\nOverall societal contributions of the study\/Conclusion<\/strong>
\nIn conclusion, summarize the societal contributions of the study. Without the societal
\ncontributions the distinct patterns of counterfeiting wouldn\u2019t have been discovered. With their tendencies and how they relate to each other, not only the ones suffering from it but the criminals who are doing the phishing. The implications advance our understanding of cybersecurity and
\nthe social sciences by helping us understand the tendencies and how to not be as open and
\ngullible to fall for fraudulent activity and patterns of being deceived.
\nReference<\/strong>
\nDumont, Pier-Louis, et al. \u201cInternational Journal of Cyber Criminology Vol 19 Issue 1
\nJanuary \u2013 June 2025.\u201d Cybercrimejournal.Com, Diamond Open Access, June 2025,
\ncybercrimejournal.com\/menuscript\/index.php\/cybercrimejournal\/article\/download\/452\/13\/909.
\nArticle Link:
\nhttps:\/\/cybercrimejournal.com\/menuscript\/index.php\/cybercrimejournal\/article\/view\/
\n508\/149<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"