China Net/China Development Portal News The report of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China made major decisions and overall arrangements for strengthening the overall layout of the construction of Digital China, and proposed to promote the deep integration of the digital economy and the real economy to create an internationally competitive digital economy. Industry Collection “Am I still dreaming, I haven’t woken up yetNZ Escorts?” She murmured to herself, feeling a little strange and happy at the same time . Could it be that God heard her plea and finally realized her dream for the first time. As the most typical innovative business model in the digital era, digital platforms are the key to the construction of digital industry clusters. Guiding the healthy and compliant development of digital platforms is the only way to promote the high-quality development of my country’s digital economy.
Digital platforms have both private and public attributes, posing new challenges to the government supervision model. On the one hand, the government should fully empower digital platforms, effectively exert the order and maintenance functions of the platforms themselves, and encourage them to achieve healthy development through self-regulation; on the other hand, the government should also strengthen supervision of digital platforms to prevent them from exceeding reasonable boundaries and conducting unreasonable activities. sequential expansion, which will have a negative impact on the development of the digital economy. In response to the current situation of the rapid development of the digital platform economy, although our country has established the regulatory principle of “inclusiveness and prudence”, due to the complexity and changeability of the digital platform ecology, the blurred boundaries of government regulatory responsibilities, and even many areas with regulatory vacancies, the government’s influence on digital platforms Regulation is prone to the dilemma of over-inclusiveness and over-regulation, thus falling into a regulatory paradox.
Looking around the world, the development of the digital economy is reshaping the global competitive landscape, and digital platforms have become the focus of competition among major countries. The government should take overall consideration from the perspective of national strategy and establish a sustainable and forward-looking digital platform governance system. The digital platform regulatory policies formulated by the government should not only stimulate the innovative vitality of digital platforms, but also maintain the order of fair competition on digital platforms; they should be based on the present but also look to the future; they should have both a domestic perspective and a global perspective. This article draws on the regulatory experience of digital platforms in the United States and the European Union. And the days are barely paid off. I can still live. My daughter is gone. The white-haired man can hurt the black-haired manZelanian sugar I’m worried for a while, but I’m afraid I don’t know how my family will live in the future. Based on experience, we reconstruct the boundaries of autonomy of digital platforms and government governance in our country, and explore how government supervision should be timely intervention, and in what way to intervene in platform autonomy, and make policy recommendations on improving the supervision model of my country’s digital platforms.
The background, model and regulatory challenges of digital platform autonomy
The background of digital platform autonomy
Digital platforms refer to enterprise organizations that use digital technology to produce and provide services. Digital platforms alsoIt also refers to those enterprise organizations that provide digital-related services for the production and services of other enterprises. In the era of digital economy, digital platforms, as a new organizational form with data as the main production factor, burst out with strong development momentum. Through the accumulation of online and offline industrial elements, digital platforms have broken the boundaries between virtuality and reality, subverted the traditional consumption forms and production models in the industrial era, effectively integrated industrial resources and market resources, and given birth to a group of companies with names such as Google in the United States. Company, American Amazon, Shenzhen Tencent Computer Systems Co., Ltd., Alibaba Group Holdings Co., Ltd., Beijing Douyin Information Services Co., Ltd. and other leading digital companies.
The digital society needs to build a market order of fair competition and achieve “good laws and good governance.” However, in the face of massive transaction data on digital platforms, an online world dominated by open algorithms, and constantly iterative and innovative trading models, Sugar Daddy‘s traditional The administrative supervision model is unsustainable. Limited law enforcement resources cannot effectively restrict and supervise the emerging infringements and illegal activities on digital platforms, and the supervision and law enforcement of digital platforms is in a dilemma. Faced with the rapid development of digital platforms, the traditional institutional order has partially failed, and government supervision is faced with the problem of being “too big to manage, too fast to keep up with, too deep to penetrate, and too new to understand”. Digital platform companies have taken on the responsibilities The function of maintaining order in the digital market. Digital platform companies can take advantage of advanced technology, rich data, and wide application scenarios to improve digital platform governance systems, build autonomous mechanisms, perform management responsibilities, and achieve good digital platformsNewzealand Sugarsexual development.
The basic model of digital platform autonomy
Digital platform autonomy is a governance model spontaneously formed by digital platforms within the scope permitted by law. Through the use of digital Use technology or sign service agreements to establish governance rules for each stakeholder of the digital platform and form an inherent management order. The government needs to rely on digital platforms for collaborative governance, so it gives digital platforms a certain “power space”, respects the autonomous rules formulated by digital platforms, and guides digital platforms to self-regulate and assume social responsibilities.
In the current market, digital platforms often have a dual identity. Digital platforms are business operators. Business operators participate in market competition and achieve commercial profits, which has the attribute of self-interest. Business operators can obtain commercial profits through digital platforms by providing various intermediary services such as social networking, travel, retail, payment, software development, etc. These services involve various fields of public life and economic operations. Digital platforms are managers who perform certain public functions. Managers are responsible for regulating and managing the transaction order within the digital platform and have public attributes. In order to achieve managementFunctions, digital platforms usually develop a complete governance system. For example, Facebook, the Internet social product owned by the American company Meta, as the world’s largest social networking site, has formulated detailed and strict “community rules” that stipulate what users within the digital platform can and cannot do. Standardize the behavior of the company and regularly publish “Community Code” enforcement reports; the mobile taxi-hailing software Didi Chuxing is a company that covers taxis, private cars, Didi Express, ride-hailing, driving and bus, freight and other businesses. The one-stop travel digital platform has updated the “Didi Platform User Rules System” many times, including “General Rules”, “General Rules”, “Exclusive Rules for Special Information Platforms”, “Special Rules for Service Functions” and “Rules for Special Functions, Areas or Scenarios”. “Temporary rules” and other measures have strengthened the management of the travel ecosystem.
Due to the huge volume of transactions on digital platforms and the high frequency of transactions, there are countless disputes and problems faced by massive transactions, which far exceed the government’s regulatory capabilities under the traditional model. Digital platform business operators It assumes the function of maintaining the operating order of the digital platform. In order to achieve the healthy operation of the digital platform ecosystem, digital platform business operators often adopt mechanisms and means commonly used by the government in the field of social public management to carry out certain autonomous management functions (Table 1).
It should be pointed out that the autonomy of digital platforms does not have natural legitimacy and legitimacy. The “power” of digital platform autonomy comes from the agreement between the digital platform and the users of the digital platform. The contract is a “transfer of rights” from the perspective of private law; on the other hand, it comes from the acquiescence or legal authorization from the perspective of public law, and its validity is confirmed on the premise that it does not violate the mandatory provisions of the law and public order and good customs. However, the autonomy of digital platforms is not a public power and cannot replace government supervision. As commercial entities, digital platforms should also be subject to government supervision; moreover, due to the irreconcilable contradiction between the self-interest attributes and public attributes of digital platforms, it is easy for digital platforms to abuse their autonomous powers. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify and reconstruct the boundaries between digital platform autonomy and government supervision, better play the role of collaborative governance, and form a digital ecological environment for fair competition.
Regulatory challenges faced by digital platform autonomy
Digital platform autonomy not only stimulates the innovation vitality of the digital economy and promotes the release of the value of data elements, but also brings Issues such as vicious competition among digital platform companies, market monopoly, consumer fraud, data leakage, and even endangerment of public safety and national security have brought new challenges to government supervision.
Digital flatRelying on capital expansion and technical barriers, Taiwan has gathered a large number of user resources, quickly connected the upstream and downstream of the industry, established an autonomous order for digital platforms, and to a certain extent exerted the public service function of digital platforms as digital infrastructure, realizing the unique characteristics of the digital economy. value creation. Zelanian Escort At the same time, the network effect and scale effect of the digital platform itself “I’ll go in and take a look.” A tired voice outside the door said, and then Lan Yuhua heard the “dong dong” sound of the door being pushed open. In response to data advantages, it is easy to form a concentrated competitive landscape in the industry. Digital platforms form positive feedback on platform value with strong network externalities, causing leading operators to often present a “winner-takes-all” situation in the digital market. In this industry-focused competitive landscape, some super digital platforms have gradually built their own “super power” through their huge autonomous systems, forming “power subjects” with huge energy, and even becoming the “second government” of cyberspace. , These behaviors can easily lead to digital platforms abusing their autonomous powers, forming a de facto monopoly in the market, and damaging the healthy competition order in the market.
In addition, because digital platform companies have both private and public attributes, digital platforms may engage in behaviors that are detrimental to public interests and endanger social public interests and national security in pursuit of “private interests.” For example, some digital platforms use algorithmic discrimination, information cocooning, big data “killing”, competitive bidding and other methods to harm the rights and interests of consumers; some digital platforms, in order to carry out precision marketing and promotion, without the consent of digital platform users, through the implantation of plug-ins, etc. This method excessively collects, illegally steals and snoops on the personal data of digital platform users, and induces consumers to over-consume and earn high profits; some digital platforms even make profits by reselling the data of digital platforms. Data “black production” is rampant and infringes upon citizens. Personal Information Rights. With the emergence of ChatGPT, a general artificial intelligence model, digital platforms will have more powerful information integration capabilities with the support of artificial intelligence (AI) technology. Besides, she has no other accessories on her body. Sugar Daddy‘s clothes are very simple in style and color, but even so, she still has a little bit of They don’t look like village women, but more like power and natural language processing capabilities, which raises people’s concerns about data security and privacy protection.
Market regulation and government intervention are the two major means by which the state ensures the healthy and smooth operation of the market economy. When market regulation fails, active government intervention is required. The point where market regulation fails is the boundary for government intervention. However, in the era of digital economy Newzealand Sugar, the business form, organizational form and resources of the market economyBig changes have taken place in terms of form and other aspects. Digital platforms have become new market entities, data has become a new factor of production, and the boundaries between the private and public fields have crossed and merged. The government and enterprises need to break the original boundaries of responsibilities and carry out collaborative governance. . The development of the digital Zelanian Escort platform ecology is complex and ever-changing. The traditional government supervision model and governance mechanism are facing severe challenges. How to determine the government’s control over digital platforms? The regulatory boundaries of the economy and how to balance industry norms and digital platform innovation have put forward new requirements for government regulatory models and governance mechanisms.
Autonomous regulatory policies for digital platforms in the United States and the European Union
The digital economy is the current high ground for global competition, and digital platforms are the engine for the development of the digital economy. Economies such as the United States and the European Union have launched continuous legislation and enforcement actions against the governance of digital platforms, but there are obvious differences in their regulatory models and levels of intervention in digital platforms.
The United States: It has always adhered to the data policy of “efficiency first”, Newzealand Sugar focuses on protecting the development of digital platforms . The Communications Decency Act passed by the United States in 1996 is the backbone of its protection of free speech on online platforms. Section 230 of the law establishes the “safe harbor” principle to protect network service providers from civil liability for third-party actions. . The United States encourages the autonomy of digital platforms to limit relevant illegal activities, but does not regard this as the obligations and responsibilities of digital platforms; the U.S. government respects the spontaneous order of the digital platform ecosystem and will only do so when the internal governance system of the digital platform is imbalanced and seriously endangers social welfare. Only then did government regulation intervene. The United States adheres to the “safe harbor” principle and exempts digital platforms from direct liability. This policy has effectively stimulated the vitality and creativity of digital platforms. It has rapidly promoted technological innovation in digital platforms, greatly developed the industrial ecology of digital platforms, strongly promoted the rise of the US Internet industry, and helped US digital platforms maintain their global leadership. However, the rapid development of digital platforms in the United States has also created increasingly serious governance problems such as data monopoly, privacy leaks, and network security risks. In recent years, the U.S. Congress has successively enacted a series of laws aimed at strengthening the protection of personal data rights. However, these legislations only regulate specific industries, specific types of data, unfair or fraudulent data activities, and have not been introduced so far. A unified privacy or data protection law.
The European Union: Committed to establishing a “digital single market” within its member states, it has long adhered to the “public NZ Escorts‘s digital policy maintains high-pressure supervision over digital platform companies. In recent years, in order to promote the development of digital platforms, the European Union has adopted a series of legislative measures to create a level playing field, accurately define the responsibilities and obligations of digital platforms, and improve digital platforms. Zelanian sugarThe impartiality and transparency of the digital platform protect the basic rights of users on digital platforms. The EU has pioneered a new joint supervision model for digital platform ecosystems, which can not only optimize the digital platform autonomy system, but also effectively prevent digital platforms from abusing their autonomy rights. Another major breakthrough in the EU’s regulation of digital platforms is the establishment of an ex-ante regulatory model with “digital gatekeepers” as the core. Through the active supervision of the government, the exercise of autonomous power of large digital platforms will be brought within the scope of legal regulations, so as to reduce malicious competition from the source and curb the infringement of the rights and interests of digital platform users. By strengthening ex-ante rules for the operation of digital platforms, the EU restricts illegal activities before they occur, promotes healthy competition in the market, increases the choice of business users and consumers, and avoids the lag caused by the lag of ex-post regulations of traditional competition laws. negative impact. At the same time, some studies show that ex-ante regulation will reduce innovation and investment in the digital economy, reduce the sustainable growth and competitiveness of digital platforms, and ultimately harm the interests of consumers. The EU has too many restrictions on the digital platform economy, which objectively inhibits the innovative spirit of digital platforms. Therefore, the development of the European digital platform economy lags behind that of the United States, and is basically in the second echelon in the world.
By comparing the regulatory policies of digital platforms in the United States and the European Union (Table 2), it can be seen that the United States adopts a relatively loose regulatory policy for digital platforms based on the policy of protecting freedom of speech, and advocates market-oriented policy concepts. Taking into account the goals of privacy protection and antitrust, giving full play to the autonomous role of digital platforms, loose regulatory policies have enabled the rapid rise of the digital industry; however, excessive expansion of the autonomous power of digital platforms has also damaged the order of fair competition and eroded public interests. Therefore, in recent years, the United States It is also moving from a loose regulatory model to a strict regulatory model; the European Union has established detailed and strict regulatory policies throughNZ Escorts As a “gatekeeper”, the EU aims to build a digital ecosystem with fair competition by bringing the autonomous power of digital platforms into the regulatory horizon. However, strict regulatory policies have inhibited the innovative spirit of digital platforms. Our country should learn from the regulatory policies and law enforcement experience of the United States and the European Union, improve our country’s laws and regulations on digital platform responsibilities, clarify the boundaries of digital platform autonomy, and build a digital platform regulatory system that adapts to the development of our country’s digital industry.
Reconfiguration of the boundaries of digital platform autonomy
18th-century French Enlightenment The thinker Montesquieu once pointed out in “The Spirit of the Laws”: “All people with power are prone to abuse their power. This is an eternal experience. Powerful people use their power until they reach a limit. “If the autonomous power of digital platforms is not restricted, it will also be abused. Judging from the governance form of my country’s digital platforms, the super autonomous power possessed by digital platforms has a tendency to break through the scope of private rights and expand to public rights, which may It will lead to the disorderly expansion of capital, the collapse of the order of fair competition, and the damage to public interests. The harm cannot be underestimated. When the internal autonomy of digital platforms is out of control, public power needs to intervene to prevent them from abusing their autonomous power. , the pace of government supervision has not kept up with the speed of innovation of digital platforms, and there has been a lack of supervision, which has caused some digital platforms to play around with policies and take advantage of the regulatory gaps to carry out policy arbitrage and grow wildly.
Over-accommodation of the autonomy rights of digital platforms is undesirable, but excessive regulation is also detrimental to the healthy development of digital platforms. Strong government supervision or excessive intervention may lead to “government failure” and restrictive government policies on digital platforms will have a negative impact on digital platforms. Platform innovation has a negative impact, and this impact is more obvious in the technological innovation of the industry. Digital platforms use data as the main production factor, and excessive protection of personal information may affect Newzealand SugarThe rational use of data by the digital platform will affect the normal functioning of the digital platform and weaken the dataZelanian Escort The innovation capabilities of digital platforms. In addition, if the government imposes heavy responsibilities on digital platforms, it will not only increase the costs and operational risks of digital platforms, but also compress their autonomy and damage their market competitiveness. Platforms should follow the principle of “moderate intervention” to avoid comprehensive regulation that stifles the vitality of digital platforms.
From the perspective of human history, every time Newzealand SugarMajor technological innovations will bring about changes in the government governance paradigm. Under the wave of digitalization, the government supervision model based on the traditional “dual opposition” theory can no longer adapt to the rapid development of digital platforms, and the government-guided supervision based on the “meta-regulation” theory has been regulatedZelanian EscortSelf-regulation by regulatory entities will be a new direction for the development of government governance models. In this context, it is necessary to respect the autonomy of digital platforms and strengthen government supervision to alleviate the conflict between the private and public attributes of digital platforms and prevent them from abusing their autonomous power to have negative impacts. Therefore, in the face of the shortcomings of the traditional government supervision model, this article believes that the following three perspectives need to be considered to reconstruct the boundary between digital platform autonomy and government governance to solve the problem of when government supervision intervenes in digital platform governance and what methods to adopt for supervision. question.
Clear the legal boundaries of government intervention in digital platforms from the perspective of balancing multiple value objectives
my country’s current legal system for the digital platform economy is not yet complete. Although relevant laws have been introduced in areas such as antitrust, data protection, and digital platform liability, there are still many areas that are vague or even vacant. The social purpose of legislation is to construct a legal order with a balance of multiple values. The development of the digital platform economy needs to take into account multiple interests. The introduction of new laws and regulations in the future needs to reflect the concept of balancing multiple value goals.
Legislation must strike a balance between restraining monopoly and encouraging innovation. In 2022, the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China will be revised and implemented, and special anti-monopoly provisions for digital platforms will be introduced in the general provisions of the law. This marks that my country’s digital platform antitrust supervision has entered a stage of refinement and normalization. Our country must continue to improve the digital Sugar Daddy platform competition system and rules, establish a market order of fair competition in the field of digital economy, but strengthen anti-monopoly At the same time, digital platform innovation cannot be stifled.
Legislation must strike a balance between the reasonable use of platform data and the protection of data security and personal privacy. my country’s “14th Five-Year Plan” proposes “coordinating data development and utilization, privacy protection and public security”, emphasizing the balanced and coordinated development of data protection and data development and utilization. In the future, legislation in areas related to data protection should actively promote data protection on the basis of protecting citizens’ NZ Escorts personal privacy and data security. Open and connected resources enable digital platforms to obtain more diverse data and tap more diverse data dividends.
Legislation must strike a balance between the interests of consumers and platform operators. my country’s current laws often impose heavy restrictions on consumers in a vulnerable positionProvide preferential protection. With the development of digital technology, the consumer society with consumer data as the core has arrived. “The single tilted protection model led by the government has gradually shown its weakness and difficulties in protecting consumer rights and interests in the digital data scenario.” Here Against this background, future legislative concepts should move from tilted protection to balanced protection, establish multiple protection paths, and shift from a single tilted protection model led by the government to a consumer protection model in which the government, operators and consumers cooperate and govern.
Determine the boundaries of autonomous power of different digital platforms from the perspective of hierarchical classification of digital platforms
In reality, there are digital platforms of different forms, and different types of digital Platforms have completely different business models, violations on different types of digital platforms are very different, and the legal responsibilities of digital platforms of different sizes should also be different. Different types of digital platforms cannot be regulated according to the same standards “one size fits all”. To determine the reasonable boundaries of digital platform responsibilities, it is necessary to consider various factors such as the digital platform’s business model, technical characteristics, and information control capabilities, and implement classified and hierarchical supervision according to the type and scale of the digital platform. In October 2021, the State Administration for Market Regulation issued the “Guidelines for the Classification and Grading of Internet Platforms (Draft for Comments)” “Internet PlatformSugar Daddy “Guidelines for the Implementation of Subject Responsibilities (Draft for Comments)”, according to the attributes and functions of the platform, it is divided into six categories and 31 categories of sub-platforms; according to the user scale, business types and restricted capabilities, it is divided into super platforms, large platforms and small and medium-sized platforms Category 3. The above-mentioned documents reasonably classify digital platforms, accurately formulate digital platform governance policies based on the characteristics of different types of digital platforms, and improve the pertinence and effectiveness of regulatory measures. The above-mentioned documents impose more stringent legal obligations on super digital platform companies, stipulate clearer legal responsibilities, and put forward higher compliance requirements to prevent superZelanian sugar-level digital platforms use their monopoly advantages to harm the interests of small and medium-sized digital platform companies.
Determining the regulatory boundaries and intensity of digital platforms from the perspective of international competition
Digital platforms are the hub for resource allocation in the global digital economy and are also a hub for major countries to The new focus of geopolitical games. At present, the development of digital platforms in the United States occupies an absolute dominant position in the world. Our country’s digital platforms are still dominated by the domestic market and occupy a small share in the international market. In recent years, the gap between our country’s digital platforms and those in the United States has been widening.
The China Academy of Information and Communications Technology’s “Platform Economy and Competition Policy Observation (2021)” report pointed out that from 2017 to 2020, the market value of my country’s top five digital platforms increased fromUS$1.1448 billion increased to US$2.0031 billion, a growth rate of 75%. The market value of the top five digital platforms in the United States increased from US$2.5252 billion to US$7.5354 billion, a growth rate of approximately 200%. However, compared with the sum of the market value of the top five digital platforms in the United States, the total market value of China’s top five digital platforms dropped from 45.3% in 2017 to 26.6% in 2020, and the gap became increasingly obvious (Figure 1 ).
When my country’s digital platforms go overseas, they are not only facing competition with overseas digital platforms, but also facing challenges from different institutional environments and regulatory policies. Only by strengthening their autonomy can digital platform companies improve their international competitiveness and enhance their global voice. Our country’s regulatory policies should be based on the perspective of international competition, proactively integrate with international regulatory policies, and vigorously enhance rather than weaken the innovation capabilities of digital platforms. In particular, we need to avoid Zelanian sugar Avoid simplistic “one-size-fits-all” strong regulatory approach that harms the international competitiveness of digital platforms. For digital platforms in key areas and emerging industries in our country, we should create a better policy environment for Zelanian Escort and give them greater development space, establish a flexible innovative trial and error mechanism, and encourage them to show their talents in international competition.
Policy Recommendations for the Supervision of Digital Platforms
With the rapid development of digital technology, traditional regulatory systems and governance methods are difficult to apply to this new type of digital platform. market entities. In order to promote the high-quality development of my country’s platform economy, it is necessary to combine the attributes of the digital platform itself, clarify the boundary between digital platform self-regulation and government supervision, improve supervision methods, and enhance supervision efficiency. The following four suggestions are put forward for the innovation of my country’s digital platform supervision model.
Transition from extensive rigid supervision to prudent and flexible supervision
Digital platforms can only achieve commercial benefits by improving transaction efficiency, generating scale effects and maintaining the healthy operation of the digital platform ecosystem. Digital platforms have sufficientWilling to build a fair and efficient trading environment through self-regulation and restraint, and maintain the normal autonomous order of the digital platform. Digital platforms can effectively Newzealand Sugar manage massive user information through the big data information advantages they possess; digital platforms can also use reasonable settings to The rights and obligations of all parties in the ecosystem coordinate the differences in interests of each subject to form a dynamic and interactive ecological network to achieve sustainable development of the platform. Government regulation cannot replace the autonomy of digital platforms. Blind intervention is likely to cause disorder of the digital platform’s “immune system”, undermine the ecological process of digital platforms, and damage economic efficiency, innovation and consumer welfare. The government should fully respect the autonomy of digital platforms within legal boundaries, prudently intervene in the governance of digital platforms, and avoid excessive interference by public power in the autonomy mechanisms of digital platforms. In addition, the government needs to follow the principle of due process when regulating digital platforms and should not enforce arbitrary or selective enforcement.
Transforming from command-based supervision to cooperative supervision
The traditional command-based supervision model easily inhibits the vitality and creativity of digital platforms and is difficult to adapt to the needs of the digital economy. development requirements. Government supervision and digital platform autonomy Zelanian sugar are not inconsistent in nature. The common goal of both parties is to realize the healthy and orderly development of digital platforms. direction development. Sugar Daddy Innovation on digital platforms should be carried out within the country’s established legal framework and constantly update its own autonomous rules and technical architectureSugar Daddy, to better meet regulators’ requirements. The government needs to follow the laws of digital platform economic development, help and guide digital platforms to establish a mature and complete autonomous order, and realize the unity of digital platform commercial interests, public interests and social welfare. The government should Zelanian sugar fully interact with digital platform companies, establish a rule connection mechanism, and provide timely and matching institutional resource supply for digital platform autonomy , forming an economic order of cooperative governance and maximizing the overall welfare of society.
Digital platforms are not only market entities, but can also serve as partners of the government. Digital platforms gather massive amounts of user information and rely on their advanced technologies to form a huge ecosystem. They can exert unique advantages in digital economic supervision and participate in various government and social public governance tasks. For exampleThe “Red Shield Cloud Bridge” system of the Hangzhou Municipal Market Supervision Bureau is the result of the cooperation between government departments and Alibaba Group Holdings Co., Ltd. The regulatory authorities can access data from digital platforms. These data can provide support for investigating and handling Internet illegal cases, effectively Solve problems such as difficulties in regulating the Internet market and difficulties in cross-regional investigation and evidence collection of online complaints and reports.
Transformation from post-event supervision to full-process supervision
Based on the timing of regulatory intervention, the supervision model can usually be divided into ex-ante supervision, in-process supervision and ex-post supervision. supervision. The traditional supervision model is mainly ex-post supervision, that is, the regulatory authorities only begin to intervene after corporate violations are discovered or reported by law enforcement personnel. The development of the digital economy is changing rapidly. Post-event supervision cannot stop illegal activities on digital platforms in a timely manner, nor can it provide other relief measures to victims in a timely manner. The negative impact will persist throughout, and users’ rights will suffer continuous losses. Full-process supervision of digital platforms is a pre-emptive supervision model that corrects unfair competition on digital platforms and curbs incidents that infringe on user rights by supervising the entire chain and process of digital platforms before, during and after the event. occur. Our country can refer to the EU’s model of ex-ante regulation of large-scale digital platforms and effectively regulate digital platforms through pre-emptive legislation and supervision.
Transformation from post-event punishment to ex-ante compliance
Enterprise compliance system Zelanian sugar originated in the United States and has continued to develop in the legal systems of European countries. It has now become an indispensable part of global corporate governance. The characteristics of digital platforms make it difficult for external regulators to investigate and supervise every transaction on the digital platform one by one. Digital platforms naturally have the advantage of constructing an autonomous order. The government can mobilize the inherent motivation of self-regulation of digital platforms through compliance incentive mechanisms, promote digital platform enterprises to continue to improve compliance systems and processes, strengthen compliance risk management and control, and realize self-regulation of digital platforms. and proactive compliance. Regulatory authorities can use compliance supervision as a way to implement regular supervision of digital platforms. By implementing compliance effectiveness assessments and conducting regular compliance inspections, they can urge digital platforms to fulfill their main responsibilities and promote the healthy and standardized development of digital platform enterprises.
(Authors: Dong Jichang, Zhan Feiyang, Li Wei, Liu Ying, School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences; Ministry of Education of Digital Economy Monitoring, Forecasting, Early Warning and Policy Simulation, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences; Guo Jinlu, Higher Education Press. ” Contributed by “Proceedings of the Chinese Academy of Sciences”)