Accountable Boundary Work Around Misinformation-Sharing Sources

Users encountering misinformation on social media must decide what to believe and also whether and how to manage an ongoing boundary with the source that shared it. We report a qualitative study with 29 participants from a university community, using an instrumented timeline environment to examine how they interpreted misinformation cues and source-level controls during feed browsing. The sources could retain value after sharing misinformation, and the content was not designed around ideological or identity conflict. Thus, acting on a source required a judgment of its own. We conceptualize deciding whether and how to alter that boundary as accountable boundary work . The framework distinguishes warrant assessment and proportional evaluation as two linked dimensions of judgment, with enactment concerning whether a contemplated boundary move can be carried through. Participants could recognize content as misinformation while preserving the existing source boundary. They also differentiated moves such as filtering and reporting according to whose exposure or relationship would change and whether platform authority could be invoked. Platform design shaped the grounds available for judgment, the interpretation of available controls, and whether contemplated moves were actionable in the flow of the feed. We contribute an interaction-grounded framework for source-level misinformation response, and design and governance implications for legible, socially defensible, and lower-burden boundary management.